First, the apostles chose to cast lots for the replacing of Judas apart from selecting the person themselves as a hierarchy would demand. Second, James was in control of the Jerusalem Council, not Peter, poo-pooing the idea that Peter was in control as some kind of Pope. (Also a number of people got up to express their opinion suggesting a democratic process.) Third, both Paul and Apollos went out preaching the word apart from any authorization from some hierarchy. It was three years after being commissioned by God before Paul even appeared before the Jerusalem Council. And finally, fourth, when the Council was in error Paul didn't hesitate to call Peter, James and others out on the carpet to show them their heresy; this isn't the norm under a strict hierarchy as you suggest. I should also say that Paul's, not Peter's, writings make up the bulk of the infalible New Testament doctrine but I don't wish to belabor this point.
Sorry, but the scriptures don't talk about any hierarchy except a loose one. If there was such a one then there would be no need for the writings to the seven churches now would there? After all, wouldn't their churches be following the commands laid down by the Church in general?
I see no evidence in your suggestion. Of course if you wish to insist, we can always talk about Pope Horatio, the declared heretic that served for 16 years. Unfortunately, the Church burned all of his infalible writings.
"And finally, fourth, when the Council was in error Paul didn't hesitate to call Peter, James and others out on the carpet to show them their heresy; this isn't the norm under a strict hierarchy as you suggest."
Sounds remarkably Orthodox to me, HD! :)
By the way, as a favor, would explain to the various Calvinists and assorted other Protestants here, in terms they understand (because its evident I can't) what the basic differences are between Orthodox and reformed theology and why an Orthodox would say that Orthodoxy needs to be experienced not explained. Thanks; I have confidence in you! You're the one Protestant I know who has studied Orthodoxy thoroughly and rejected it! :)
The letters to Timothy and Titus in their entirety speak to the emerging hierarchy. Besides, at which point does the scripture begin to matter to you? To me, one verse is quite enough. Go check -- I did not take it out of context, the entire letter to Corinthians is an expression of St. Paul's authority.
St. Ignatius wrote that in 1c., which is evidence of a strong hierarchy from bishop down established as early as that. You cannot dismiss it -- it is history.
The casting of lots indeed was an expression of a desire to let God decide on the twelveth apostle, but that is because unlike bishops, the Apostles were chosen directly by Christ.
Deliberations, including protestations to the pope, are how things are done in the Catholic Church to this day. It is also noteworthy that St. Paul corrected Peter on a matter of his personal behavior, and not on a matter of faith.
It is true that St. James presided at the council of Jerusalem. That is because he was the local bishop there. But on the papacy I agree that it was much looser in the beginning; it is the hierarchy from the bishop down that was a mark of the early Church,