>>>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.<<<
I already explained this - I will not do it again.
>>>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.<<<
I also already accounted for other binding and loosing. Do you actually read what I post before responding, or do you just skim over it looking for things you can object to?
>>>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.<<<
James' and the council's decision was based on Peter's testimony.
>>>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.<<<
The quote was to illustrate that the disciples kept the law - the elephant in the room.
Peter alone was given the "keys". Christ addressed Him directly and in the singular. The Law binds and removing the Law looses. Peter was instrumental in both.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff. I have already explained your objections, even though you keep bringing them up over and over again. I will no longer respond to your posts to me if you continue with the same repetitions.
Indeed you did not. I pasted that in the wrong tab/box as it was to a post that was in my inbox from am RC just before yours. Sorry.
I already explained this - I will not do it again.
Your "explanation" does not warrant your conclusion, as will be further explained.
I also already accounted for other binding and loosing. Do you actually read what I post before responding, or do you just skim over it looking for things you can object to?
And I explained that you cannot restrict binding and loosing to simply being loosed from the Law, or make that Peter's only use of the keys, or uniquely so. Do you actually read what I post.... What you think you "accounted for" is one thing, but its remains that as your premise is false so is your conclusion.
Your premise is that since Scripture says that the Law was bondage, and since Peter presumed disciples were bound to obey all the Law ("binding" them), and later exhorted the elders to see that God was not requiring obedience to all the law (loosing them) as part of obedience to Christ (but which he never preached justified a soul), then that was his only use of the keys. Which is absurd.
For what Scripture reveals is that the key to the kingdom is the gospel, which gospel all the church preached, and is one form of binding and loosing, with healing, church discipline and certain judgments being others.
For Scripture teaches that one can be bound by sickness and thus Christ, who came to loose captives, (Lk. 4:18) set such free, (Lk. 13:11-16) as did Peter and John in Acts 3.
And as the OT mag. could judicially bind or loose one to his transgression, disobedience to which was a capital crime, likewise Peter judged Ananias and Sapphira to their guilt of disobedience in Acts 5, resulting in death.
Similarly, Peter judged Simon as having not part nor lot in ministry due to being in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity, which Simon was left in, thus Simon asked Peter to pray for deliverance from judgment. (Acts 8:21-23)
To the contrary, Peter preached liberty from sin in Acts 2 and 3, being set free from sins by faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, with unbelief leaving souls bound. At no time did Peter preach justification by the Law, though it was yet presumed that obedience to the ceremonial law was yet enjoined. And which, in part, Paul was engaging in by taking a vow which required a Jewish sacrifice in Acts 21, and becoming as one under the law in other times. But which was not that of justification by the Law which the Judaizers of Galatians were doing.
And thus Peter engaged in binding and loosing before Acts 15, nor did he then bind the church to his judgment, nor was he alone preaching salvation apart from obeying all the law.
Paul received his gospel "not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12) And before Acts 15 he preached
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39)
In other church discipline, Paul together with the church bound an incestuous man in 1Co. 5 to chastisement by the devil.
The elders (primarily) of the church as well as other holy intercessors can also obtain the loosing of deliverance of sins for which one may be chastened for. (Ja, 5:14-18)
In addition, Elijah bound and loosed the heavens, which James invokes as an example of what holy believers may do.
James' and the council's decision was based on Peter's testimony. And not his alone, but that of Paul and Barnabas, who certainly did not seem bound by Peter to preach the Law. Nor did Peter bind anyone to his judgment, but merely exhorted the church not to yoke the Gentiles into having to keep all the Law (though the moral law was reinforced as manifesting obedient saving faith).
Instead, the final conclusive sentence awaited the judgment of James, which provided it as being Scripturally substantiated, which the elder collectively bound the churches to accept.
Thus your premise that Peter's only use of the keys (or key) was that of binding the Law upon the church and loosing it is false, as binding/loosing pertains to more than salvation, and while Peter did not bind the church any more than they presumed they were bound, (to keep the burdensome Law as part of the obedience to Christ who saved them by grace - not by the merit of Law-keeping, contrary to the Judaizers of Galatians);
yet Peter did not loose the church from keeping the Law (nor forbid them from doing as Paul did in Acts 21), but only exhorted them to not place this yoke upon the Gentiles, affirming salvation was by grace for both Jews and Gentiles. Which Paul and Barnabas were already preaching, and with the conclusive judgment being provided by James, which all the elders bound the church do.
Peter alone was given the "keys". Christ addressed Him directly and in the singular. The Law binds and removing the Law looses. Peter was instrumental in both.
Wrong continually, as while Peter was addressed singularly as regards the keys, this is manifest as being the gospel which all the church preached, and in no place is Peter shown doing anything uniquely. Peter was also addressed singularly as regards binding and loosing, but which is also shown to apply to all believers.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff.
Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff as it simply get refuted again.
I will no longer respond to your posts to me if you continue with the same repetitions.
That would be wisdom, as the more you do then the more the fallacious nature of your fringe beliefs are exposed. Even though i have been so busy i takes my days to respond. Have to go now.