Posted on 05/10/2013 9:44:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You may wish to reread Paul. He had several levels of clergy under his own authority.
“He had several levels of clergy under his own authority. “
No he didn’t. He was an apostle, and strove with Peter over this and that, and they met as a group of elders to work things out, and they did so.
There are two ordained offices in the church: elders(or bishops if you prefer), and deacons.
No pope, head elder, or what have you.
It is interesting that you mention Paul as a super authority, since Peter according to RC doctrine is supposed to be the overall head, but I digress.
No he didn’t. He was an apostle, and strove with Peter over this and that, and they met as a group of elders to work things out, and they did so.
That is working things out with equals. The fact is that Timothy was under Paul, and the local deacons were under Timothy. The hierarchy was established very explicitly.
“That is working things out with equals. The fact is that Timothy was under Paul, and the local deacons were under Timothy. The hierarchy was established very explicitly. “
Chapter and verse?
Certainly Timothy was Paul’s son in the faith. That doesn’t make Paul pope.
Why do you keep promoting Paul as the head guy? The doctrine you are defending promotes Peter to that spot.
I also see no verse talking about deacons being under anyone particularly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.