dear PSacramento...
you said: "Sometimes we forget that even the apostles didn't always agree with each other or see eye-to-eye, such was the case with Paul, Peter and James, even John and James and the rest of the apostles, even Thomas.
We don't always have to agree on every little point about doctrine, we are all under Our Lord and how Our lord chooses to reveal himself to each of us is Up to Him.
Peace and love amongst all believers, in Our Lord Jesus Christ."...
while scripture mentions disagreement among the apostles I doubt the church would have come to a "unity of the faith" if they had simply agreed to disagree...likely they brought forth their good reasons until a concensus was achieved. I also doubt that the nature of Jesus Christ was ever considered a little point about doctrine. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the faith...what a shaky foundation if He can be both God and not God at the same time. how could the church make a legitimate defence of its faith to an unbeliever? why would martyrs concede to such a waffleing doctrine? in fact james 5:20 makes much of the difference between truth and error...the difference being the persons salvation or not. faith confronts the erring brother...this is true and enduring love. when we were talking on tuesday I had mentioned how unity in body of Christ goes hand in hand with unity of purpose. 1 john 2:19 speaks of those that had their own agenda apart from building up the body for a purpose (2 thess 1:10) *amen!!*...verse 21 agrees that no lie(error) is of the truth...there is only one truth then...Jesus is God the Son or Jesus is not God the Son.
Jesus agreed that He was the Son of God making Himself equal with God(john 5:17-18)...put another way..."Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1 john 2:23).
love michelle