Paul did not call himself a father.
Matt 23:
[9] And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
NOT a mystery!
It means not to elevate anyone to the level of God, which proves you read into the passage what isn't there.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.”
Paul was MADE “IN Christ” and Chosen and Appointed by the Lord God to INSTRUCT other men IN THE TRUE WORD of God….
That's what priests do. Every priest becomes a father through the Gospel the same as Paul that you deny because you have no priest, no pastor, and no community. Where in the Bible is the New Testament Priesthood abolished? Obviously its a man made tradition.
The notion that Paul was disconnected from the institutional Church has always been rejected as unbiblical.
It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.
- In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
- He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
- and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
- He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
-Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
-Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others
were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas
“being sent on their way by the church.” Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas
were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).
if you agree that Paul was commissioned as an apostle “by Jesus Himself” then does he derive his apostleship from Jesus or from Peter?
Both. Why do you feel compelled to make a choice? It’s the usual Protestant “either/or” dichotomous mentality. Calvin does the same thing repeatedly.