How does one explain that there is only one Gospel message (grace through faith), even while the early Church was administered out of the temple in Jerusalem for almost two decades?
There is a choice to be made. Either for nearly two decades the early Church operated out of the temple and the disciples kept the Law, and that is how they kept from being driven out by the other sects of Jews or being stoned to death. Or the other choice is to believe that the early Church was allowed to preach against keeping the Law in the temple for nearly two decades and the other Jewish sects just ignored them. The second choice is completely unrealistic and unbelievable.
I know there is only one Gospel message of grace without Law. But the disciples were not clear about how the Church would work in the first two decades. Christ taught keeping the Law, because He was under the Law and so were the disciples. The disciples knew nothing else at the time of His crucifixion and resurrection. Christ never told them to stop keeping the Law. That was to come later. They were all Jews who ran the Church out of the temple in Jerusalem. They could never have done that if they were not keeping the Law (did you miss where I said, "despite that this directly contradicts the gospel" in my earlier post). Christianity began as a sect of Judaism - hardly surprising given the circumstances.
From my book, MetaChristianity - Unlocking Dispensation Bible Mysteries:
Quote===>
Ac.2.5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.
On the day of Pentecost 3000 Jews "from every nation under heaven" (Ac.2.41) were converted and subsequently went home to their own countries with little or no teaching about their new religion. They would not even know it was a new religion. They were waiting for a Jewish Messiah and He had now come and it was promised He would return. As far as they were concerned their conversion was just one more step in being a Jew. Why would they think otherwise? They would not have been warned that the Law was abolished on the cross for saints (the eleven apostles did not even understand this), and that the Gentiles would also be included in this new religion (again, the eleven did not understand this either), so naturally they would continue to keep the Law along with their newfound faith in Christ, and they would also continue to see themselves as separate from the Gentiles. This point cannot be over stressed - understand this: The early Church was barely distinguishable from other Jewish sects except for the upholding of Christ as messiah. The early disciples focused their religion in Jerusalem at the temple (Ac.2.46, Ac.5.12, Ac.5.21) and would have upheld the Law as any Law abiding Jews would. Indeed, had they not upheld the Law, but instead denounced it as did Paul later, they would have been persecuted as heretics. This new sect would have ended right there. Christ would have died for nothing. There would have been no one to preach the good news. Indeed, Peter and John were jailed for preaching "Jesus and the resurrection of the dead" (Ac.4.2, Ac.5.17-18, Ac.6.8-7.60), not for breaking the Law and advocating against keeping it. They still saw themselves as Law abiding Jews and expected their disciples to do the same. No wonder it took almost two decades to establish the gospel message without the contamination of the Law (and even then the Law continued to creep back into the practice of the early Church). The council of Ac.15 was not the end of the battle against the Law, but the beginning. Indeed, even as late as the latter part of Acts the Church was seen as nothing more than a "sect" of Judaism (Ac.24.5,14 Ac.28.22), and the Jerusalem Christians are described as still being zealous for the Law. It is a testament to Paul's perseverance and God's work through him and others that the one and only "gospel of God's grace" has prevailed (mostly). Just as it took decades (forty years in the desert) for the Jews to accept the LORD as their God after He brought them out of Egypt , it also took decades for Judaism to be removed from the early Church.
<===/Quote
It was in Ac.15 that the yoke of the Law was finally separated from the early Church, regardless of what they were preaching about the Gospel beforehand. Peter had believed for quite a while that the Law should be abandoned, and it was his testimony that persuaded the council to formally act.
That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing, yet it remains that the idea that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys given was to bind and loose the Law on the Church is absurd. For it depends upon restricting that power to a doctrinal decision, contrary to Scripture, and presumes that Peter is the one who provided the final judgment as to this and what should be done in Acts 15, which is not the case.
As explained, binding and loosing (both in judicial and spiritual application) was not new, and Peter exercised such in preaching the gospel in Acts 2 etc., before Acts 15. In addition he did so in binding Ananias and Saphira to their sins and unto the death in Acts 5.
Moreover, Peter did not judicially loose anything in Acts 15, as it was James who provided the conclusive judgment, with Scriptural substantiation, in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and testimony and that of Paul and Barbabas, who prior to this were also preaching salvation by faith, without needing to obey the ceremonial law.
And which has been said and dismissed, and instead comes verbiage from your book which utterly fails to show or warrant the conclusion that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys was to bind and loose the Law on the Church.