Brother George, your posts are always a delight, a challenge, and a blessing, but I disagree with some of your terminology in this one. I believe, however, that terminology (taxonomy, if you will) is our only point of difference.

My understanding of an apostate is that he or she has "fallen away from a standing position:" that's the Greek etymology I learned in Bible school, and it's backed up by this brief definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

apostate: 1340, "one who forsakes his religion or faith," from L.L. apostata, from Gk. apostasia "defection, desertion, rebellion," from apostenai "to defect," lit. "to stand off," from apo- "away from" (see apo-) + stenai "to stand."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=apostate

In my understanding, an atheist or a Muslim or a Buddhist would not be an apostate (to their religion) unless they had turned away from their original "orthodox" belief. In Christian terms, the apostates are those who, having professed the Biblical truths, turn away from them, and embrace some unscriptural concept - - - or deny the faith altogether. (E.g., Osama bin Laden is probably not an "apostate" Muslim, whereas Billy Graham, if his sad senility has really led him to universalism, is an apostate.) In order to apostasize, one must have an orthodox belief to begin with.

An atheist, or a disbeliever in Jesus' Deity, is not in that position, if he/she has never been saved. Before I came to Christ, I was an atheist or an agnostic, but not an apostate; I hadn't "fallen away from" my original "standing position."

A heretic, on the other hand, is anyone who believes or espouses a heresy. It is, quite obviously, possible to be an apostate and a heretic: I think of a former Southern Baptist evangelist who embraced charismania. Or, one can be a heretic from the very beginning, like those poor unfortunates raised in the Mormon church, or some other cult. They're heretics, but not apostates.

I don't mean to quibble over inessentials, but I think this is a helpful distinction.

Can a Bible believer be a heretic? To the degree that he/she embraces a heretical doctrine, yes. But, in my heart of hearts, I think that a sincere believer in the authority of the KJB (with the emphasis on "sincere" and "authority") will eventually get the doctrine straightened out. I do not believe that anyone who maintains belief in the KJB can apostsize: the moment he embraces an apostate belief, he has, by definition, ceased to believe the KJB.

Historically, until about 15 or 20 years ago, Pentecostals clung to the KJB, and most black churches still do. But I would not define their preference for the KJB as putting them in our camp. Their allegiance, I think, was as cultural as spiritual.

As for inessentials, like Christmas trees and smoking cigarettes, I don't think that such constitutes heresy or apostasy, although it may indicate imperfect obedience!

Your inability to understand the inevitability of simple disagreements makes you a very tedious conversationalist, and your unsubstantiated claim that at least one KJB believer disbelieves in the Trinity is mischievous. The New Testament records sharp disagreements between Spirit-filled men in which neither was clearly wrong; and there are many passages about "doubtful things," like eating meats sacrificed to idols. Such matters do not always constitute apostasy or heresy. There is such a thing as Christian liberty, as you know very well: your apparent freedom of conscience to engage brothers in trifling, pedantic argumentation is a good example, although one which I would not embrace.