You are flailing - I can tell that you have never heard any of this before. You have not thought it through, you have not studied it, and are operating by the seat of your pants.
I never said it was "as per Rome", and I resent that you imply that I am defending Rome. Hardly! The "keys" of Mt.16.19 were given to Peter alone as I illustrated in post #169, for a specific application (Rome claims it was universal and forever). The Church would have gone nowhere if the leaders were stoned to death for opposing the Law, which would have definitely happened the first time that they opposed it. Christ would have died for nothing! The Church had no choice other than to start out as a sect of Judaism until Ac.15, keeping the Old Covenant Law as any Jews did (despite that this directly contradicts the gospel). The disciples actually believed that this was right and proper at the time. In the beginning not one even imagined that Gentiles would be admitted into the Church without becoming Jews, because they all believed that Christ died only for Israel. Peter was the leader of the Church when they adopted this policy of keeping the Law in Ac.1, and was the deciding voice in abandoning the Law in Ac.15. Neither of these occurrences could have happened without God's sanction. God did this by giving Peter the "keys" to bind and loose the Law - both one-time events.
Insolent bombast, as in reality it is you who manifest ignorance of this debate, as is it much the same as one i spent many posts on (as here ), refuting the absurd premise that Peter preached a different gospel until after he was enlightened in Acts 10. Thus i should not spend much time on this again.
I never said it was "as per Rome", and I resent that you imply that I am defending Rome.
I was referring to the aspect that Peter's authority flowed from him, but your premise that specific “keys” were given only to Peter is also an error. Peter was not even alone in preaching in Acts even before Acts 15, as Paul received the gospel of grace by special revelation, not from Peter, and was preaching it before Acts 15. (Gal. 1)
Wrong, and you only illustrated your erroneous conclusion that Petrine binding/loosing uniquely and simply pertained to his preaching the abrogation of the Law, and your confusion btwn preaching the Law as a means of salvation vs. being kosher in seeking to please God according to the light one has. Paul taught in Rm. 14 that one can even believe eating meat it wrong and yet be a believer..
Both Peter and Paul preached the death, resurrection and Lordship of Christ and consequently forgiveness of sins by faith and the promised outpouring of the Spirit to Jews and " and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call"(Acts 2:39) as "it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21) without any further sacrifices. Which was a realization of the latter day promise of Joel 2, and which gospel "key" looses souls from their dammed state and places them into the kingdom, and which is not salvation under the Law
Those who reject the gospel remain bound in their sins. Early Jewish believers yet kept the ceremonial law (which rendered Gentiles ceremonially unclean) in expressing their obedience to God (like as we keep the moral law) according to the light they had, though certain false brethren, whom Paul wished were cut off (or castrated) sought to be justified by law keeping, versus by faith in Christ, which required repenting from, which Peter did not do, but realized the abrogation of the ceremonial law as a result of the vision of Acts 10.
The Church had no choice other than to start out as a sect of Judaism until Ac.15, keeping the Old Covenant Law as any Jews did (despite that this directly contradicts the gospel).
Then all the apostles were preaching a false gospel, even as late as Acts 21, and needed to repent. However, they were not keeping the law as a means of salvation, which is not what Peter preached and which is what is condemned, as is as not walking in the further light that showed Jews and Gentile as equal candidates for salvation and recipients of it.
What Peter did preach in Acts 2 is essentially the same as Acts 10, and Paul in Rm. 10. Paul taught that one who believes, calls upon, confesses the Lord Jesus will be saved (though the faith behind it is what appropriates justification), as did Peter, with baptism being a more manifest confession of Christ than doing so with one's lips. The Jews did not realize the implications of this, that the latter-day promise of Joel 2 and what all "not according to the covenant" the institution of the New Covenant entailed, yet they were saved by grace.
Though it was initially presumed that faith in Christ entailed not only obedience to the moral law (which is fulfilled as one walks in the Spirit in looking to Christ: (Acts 8:4) yet it was not salvation as under the Law that Peter preached, while binding/loosing took place in Acts 2 as well as 10.
God did this by giving Peter the "keys" to bind and loose the Law - both one-time events.
Wrong, for as said, Paul received the gospel of grace by special revelation, not from Peter, and was preaching it before Acts 15. (Gal. 1) Thus in Acts 15 he and Barnabas gave testimony about the saving of the Gentiles thru them.
Read thru the thread i referenced as it is much the same issue. I am trying to install a couple operating systems so i am not going into this further now.