Hi Forrest, Harley, George, Here Am I, Vendetta Ride, and others,

Numerous questions have been forth to me about what I believe, etc. These questions are off topic in my opinion, thus I do not want to respond to them in this thread but again I openly invite anyone to email me at "brian AT tegarttech DOT com" where I will answer any questions. Some may think Im trying to avoid such questions, but I am not - I just know answering them in this thread will take things severely off topic.

George said
I agree, and thank you for clarifying your comments from your original post. However, the issue of "major" Bible doctrine implies that there are minor Bible doctrines, and that there is some distinction between the two. Often, people disagree over whether a doctrine is "major" or not.

Also, and I realize your list of 40 is only a partial list, but there are genuine heresies that could affirm things as you worded them. For example, items 20 & 21 (the closest your list comes to Trinitarian doctrines) could be affirmed by those who hold the heresies of Sabellianism (Jesus is not just the Son, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit), Docetism (Jesus's body only appeared to be human), Adoptionism (the Godhead entered Jesus at his baptism), etc. I'm not saying that this is how you meant it of course, but simply pointing out that interpretation of words, and not just the words themselves, is a crucial factor in heresy.

Vendetta Ride, I agree with most of what you wrote, but want to reply to a couple specific comments. You said:

Maybe it's just semantics, but I disagree. People "believe the KJV" all the time even when believing heresy. This does not mean the KJV teaches heresy, but rather that the more accurate way of saying what I think you meant is "the moment he embraces an apostate belief, he has, by definition, ceased to believe the correct interpretation of the KJB". Of course, this brings us full circle to my original question, of how to authoritatively know who has the correct interpretation.

It is not mischievous, it was completely relevant (as an example) to the topic at hand and the points I am making. As for substantiating the claim, the purpose of me mentioning it is not to start a witch hunt or deflect the opposition I am receiving on this forum, but rather to demonstrate how the ideas of having the correct orthodox doctrine (or eventually arriving at it) just because one is KJV-only sounds great in theory but simply doesn't happen in practice. I have encountered KJV-only supporters that vocally and agressively teach baptism is a requirement of salvation, speaking in tongues is a requirement of salvation, soul sleep, posttribulationism, Sabellianism, an unborn baby is not "a human soul" until it breaths, and numerous other doctrines that the typical KJV-only supporter would consider "heresy", and I have no reason to believe they will not continue in these doctrines for the rest of their lives. If the non-Trinitarian on this board wants to expose himself, he will. He knows who he is, and he knows that I know who he is, but I will not rise up as his accuser for the purposes of causing yet even more antagonism and schism on this board. In fact, I'm thinking I may even bid you all farewell just to allow this board to be more peaceful. I have endeavored to not be antagonistic to anyone in all of my postings here, and yet my postings seem to cause some people to get quite upset. I guess I understand why, but I wish we all could simply discuss things without all the negativity and personal attacks.

God bless,
Brian