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.
Again you have just regurgitated the same-old, same-old (and just expanded it), none of which is pertinent. I have said from the beginning that there are other bindings and loosings - why you think you have to provide example after example is beyond me. Who are you arguing with?
But there is only one binding and loosing with “keys”, given to Peter by Christ, directed at him with singular grammar. In Mt.18.18-19 Christ addressed binding and loosing in the plural, indicating that there were other bindings and loosings, but without mention of the “keys”, because, of course, they were for Peter alone, for a specific purpose - to bind and loose the Law.
By the way, Christ’s and Paul’s beliefs were considered “fringe” as well. I’ll take your accusation as a compliment.
I’m done.
>>>That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing<<<
I'd be curious what it reveals, if this wasn't such a pathetic example of how you don't actually read what I post, but only skip through my posts looking for something to get upset about. I never said that I included the "keys" doctrine in my book. The only reason I brought up my book is because you veered off the road into the ditch with the two-Gospels controversy of Mid Acts Dispensationalism, despite that I never in any way talked about the two-Gospels controversy of Mid Acts Dispensationalism. In fact, the "keys" are only significant to Roman Catholic doctrine and add nothing to a discussion of Mid Acts Dispensationalism.
But by all means, just go ahead and write reams of objections to what I have not addressed, and continue to ignore what I have. It is all you have done so far anyway...