The main problem is that many religious leaders today say one thing and teach another. If you ask Gregory Boyd or the other “Open View of God” heretics if they believe in the “omniscience” of God, they will say, “Yes.” Dumb Christians are satisfied at this point and go their merry way deceived and hoodwinked. But if you force them to define the term “omniscience,” they end up denying that God knows all things! They claim that God does not and cannot know the future.
Just because someone says, “I believe in sola scriptura,” does not mean he really believes in it. If he elsewhere says that the Bible is not the final authority in faith and practice, he has denied in substance what he supposedly affirmed as a slogan. Heretics have always done this. What they affirm with the right hand is what they deny with the left hand. It does not matter what doctrine is at stake.
In the early 1980s, those who denied the inerrancy of Scripture did not begin by openly denying it. They redefined it until the term “inerrancy” meant errors!
Those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ often pretend to believe in it by tricky words and double talk.
Believe me; I have heard some slick theologians in my day!
Apostasy in Scripture is of two kinds: doctrinal and moral.
A heretic can be a good person who is very moral. Yet, he can also be an anti-Christ. The monk Pelagius was according to all a good man, morally speaking. Thus when I point out some teacher as a heretic, evanjellyfish usually respond, “But he is sooo nice! He is a good man. How dare you attack him!”
They assume that heretics are always mean and vile. A nice heretic who says that right phrases and theological clichés cannot be a heretic in their mind.The problem with heretics who are “nice” is that we tend to let them get away with the most outrageous teaching because they seem to be so nice.
~ Robert Morey