IMHO there is not enough there to justify a SV stance. One cannot be too careful in this matter. In the same way we are bound to believe what is solemnly defined, therefore, only a solemn abrogation of doctrine or erroneous addition could justify a SV position. And it should be noted, God can still speak the truth through a subverted individual, as we read of Balaam who was a prophet of the demons:
Number 22:12-13
Balaam made answer to Balac: Did I not say to thy messengers, whom thou sentest to me: If Balac would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to utter any thing of my own head either good or evil: but whatsoever the Lord shall say, that I will speak?
As can be discerned from the undertone, the end summary by Peter Dimond is largely about proving himself right and nailing his opponents rather than a charitable admonition to the faithful.
3 John 1:9-10
"I had written perhaps to the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, doth not receive us. For this cause, if I come, I will advertise his works which he doth, with malicious words prating against us."
"A heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." - St Augustine