>>>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...
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Which is required reading preparatory to your tangential absurdity, as it is similar to it, both ascribing a fundamental difference to Peter as to what he preached before Acts 15 as relates to the Law. You both have him preaching a different gospel early on, whether you admit it or not, while you make him as alone as having the "keys," erroneously teaching this refers to binding/loosing obedience to the Law, and only that.
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...
Charging others with what you example and thus warrant reiteration is only damage control due to the specious nature of your polemic being exposed.