Hi Robby,
Let me work through some of your statements in your last post:
The 12 Apostles were unique, Yeshua said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Therefore, this is noteworthy and advantageous to truth, including "things" regarding the last days.
I have no reason to agree that the "things" mentioned here have to do with the end of the world. The Holy Spirit certainly did teach the disciples all things necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). It is hard to imagine how any information about the end times would fit into such a category. How is my life or godliness enhanced by any knowledge of the end times—whether by your system or any other? Since Jesus Himself told the same apostles that it was not for them to know the times that the Father put in His own authority, I think we can safely assume that such "times" were not among the "things" that the Holy Spirit would teach them about.
However, The Apostles were told the following, "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near." And yes, this included the second coming.
This statement cannot be taken at face value without some demonstration that the nearness of the kingdom is synonymous with (or even related to) the second coming of Christ. This is your assumption, but not one that anyone else would be required to make.
So since The Apostles were promised that The Holy Spirit will guide, teach and bring all things back to their remembrance, Peter's claim, "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." Is he not declaring his authentic discernment based on what transpired in the Olivet Discourse? Did he not, in-fact, get it right?
Peter may well have been basing this prediction upon the statements of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse—though there would hardly need to be any special discernment for him to know this. If he is referring to the fall of Jerusalem here (as I believe he is), then he would know, as did all Christians, that Jesus foretold this to occur in their generation. Peter, writing over thirty years later, would know (as anyone familiar with the discourse would know) that the time must be very near. This would not require special revelation being given to Peter. Anyone familiar with Christ's discourse (most Christians probably were) would be able to deduce the same.
Prophet or not, the ability to discern properly rested with The Apostles. So again, Peter said the time was near, because Yeshua said he would know the signs of the time, and you say... what exactly?
What I would exactly say is that the promise of divine instruction given to the apostles was no guarantee that they would be omniscient. As I have pointed out in previous threads, Paul admitted ignorance of certain things, and said he was stating his opinion or his judgment about other things, even in his written epistles. When a man tells you in writing that he does not remember certain things, or doesn't know certain things, it would seem presumptuous for us to deny his statements and to insist that he actually knew all things.
If they were wrong here, what makes you think they were correct in anything else? So we get to pick-and-choose I guess, and create a designer eschatology, gospel, etc...
In our previous dialogues on these topics, I have made it clear that I do not think that the apostles made wrong statements about the timing of things (although I would not say they were incapable of doing so). There are two kinds of statements that New Testament writers made concerning future things:
1) There were times when they spoke about the nearness of the destruction of the old order, which occurred in AD 70—proving them correct;
2) There were times that they spoke generally of the end of the world and the future coming of Christ, in which they made no specific reference to timing, and, for all we know, they were correct about these things as well. Time will tell.
I have never suggested that the New Testament writers made incorrect statements about the timing of future events (although Paul did seem to expect to visit Rome sooner than this actually occurred—Romans 15:22-28). However, I have said that it was not impossible for them to be mistaken about such things, except in cases where they had divine revelation about them. There is no evidence in scripture that the apostles had special divine revelations given to them concerning the timing of the end of the world—especially since the Lord Himself told them that such things were not for them to know! Therefore, if ever they had expressed an opinion about such a thing, they were as capable as anyone else of being mistaken about it.
As for your question about how we would pick or choose what to recognize as authoritative, I would say that we recognize the epistles for exactly what they claim to be—letters from apostles to their friends and churches. Apostles were mortal, fallible men (sometimes even needing to be corrected by each other—Gal.2:11), who were divinely-selected spokespersons, trained and divinely-informed concerning the message they were to give. There is no suggestion of magical writing techniques, nor of omniscience, implied by any of the authors concerning their letters, in general, though they sometimes mentioned that some of the points they were making were specifically revealed to them (at some earlier time) by God.
They wrote about things which they knew well, and which they were authorized to lay down as normative Christian theology and practice. They also included personal information and locally-restricted material, like personal greetings to friends in the recipient churches, reference to upcoming travel plans, retelling of their recent experiences, requests for Timothy to bring Paul's cloak and scrolls to him, thanks for recent gifts, exhortations to greet with a holy kiss, etc. There is no evidence that the writers, in writing such passages, were aware of any divine revelation or inspiration occurring while they wrote.
The same is true of their theological and ethical instructions. These instructions were definitely informed, at times, by what Christ had taught when present, or at other times, by special revelations that they had subsequently received from the Holy Spirit. Because of these divine sources, we know that these men wrote truths revealed to them by God. This does not mean that, in the later writing of these truths, they labored under a supernatural form of writing—nor would that be necessary in order for us to trust them.
When they affirmed something to be true, they were writing the truth. When they said that they had nothing from the Lord about a subject, and were giving their opinion, this was also the case. When they said they had forgotten certain things and were not sure whether they were right about those things, I accept this also as they represent it. If they express expectations about things, which, by definition, are known to no human being, I would take this for what it is—a personal hope or expectation, based upon possibilities, but no known certainly. In other words, I take the information in the apostolic correspondence in the very manner that they seem to want their listeners to receive it.