Robert Zins: Over the Edge of Brotherly Kindness

An Exposé of Robert M. Zins' Campaign to Discredit Evangelical Christians

    Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! My name is Douglas Gwinn. I will be maintaining this web site to assist the Body of Christ in making an informed decision as you consider inviting one Robert M. Zins to be a speaker at your church, college, or other Christian organization or event. I will do this by briefly critiquing a book by Mr. Zins and by commenting on my personal experiences with him. Finally, I will provide my recommendation for parameters of Evangelical involvement with Robert Zins.

    Let me "cut to the chase." I document at this page that Robert Zins, a member of a Southern Baptist church, is actively pursuing a campaign in which he declares that Evangelicals are not true Christians. My primary focus is to expose Mr. Zins' outrageous allegations about Evangelicals and to call him to account, to encourage his repentance and restoration in the Body of Christ. Evangelicalism is presently under attack from Robert Zins, and by the grace of God, I will defend my brothers and sisters in Christ in the face of this attack.

    Mr. Zins has a ministry in North Carolina which he calls, "A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism" — CWRC.  He is sponsored by a previous church in Rutland, Vermont, the Reformed Bible Church (Southern Baptist). He travels extensively throughout the United States, England, Ireland, and Australia to conduct "seminars, symposiums, conferences, and workshops" — according to his literature. He produces and sells an extensive array of videos, tapes, pamphlets and books. Informally, he is often referred to as Rob Zins or less often as R.M. Zins or RM Zins.

    My first exposure to Robert Michael Zins was on May 23, 1999, when he was a guest speaker at my church (at that time), Grace Church of Glendora (California). My second experience with Robert Zins was six days after the first one, i.e., May 29, 1999, when he hosted a table at a "Book Faire" at a local Christian Bookstore. We will discuss the Bookstore experience momentarily, but first, a few points of order.

    I maintain this website in the spirit of Ephesians 4:15 ["Speaking the truth in love"]. There are a number of unresolved issues between "Brother Rob" and myself. [Rob told me he doesn't mind being called "Brother Rob"] I have already presented Rob with these issues in person and subsequently when there were several other Christians present. I then "told it to the church" by contacting the elders at Rob's church, in accordance with Matthew 18:15ff.

    Rob Zins came to a point where he refuses to speak with me any more. That being the case, I believe I can be a kind of buffer between Robert Zins and the people he continues to discredit on spiritual matters, or those he plans to confront. I take no pleasure in creating and maintaining this web site, but I cannot keep silent when God's people are being treated unjustly, especially when the ill treatment is under the banner of Mr. Zins' misapplication of Scripture, as I will show.

    On the Sunday evening at our church, Brother Rob began his discussion by delineating a critique of Catholicism. He identified a focal point in the Catholic-Protestant debate: the continuing influence of The Council of Trent (1545-1563) where the Protestant Reformation was repudiated. He reminded us that the dogma of Trent has never been reversed or modified by Rome.

    Robert Zins then transitioned from his exposé of Catholicism into a verbal assault against a number of beloved Evangelical leaders including Luis Palau, Billy Graham, Norman Geisler, (the late) Bill Bright, and Charles Colson. The criticism of Evangelicals goes something like this: If you are friends with a Catholic person, particularly in a Christian context, without rebuking their beliefs and doctrine, you have embarked on the road to apostasy. And if you don't repent of it quickly, you have crossed the line into apostasy.

    I concur with Robert Zins that true believers ought to actively oppose unbiblical tenets and empty rituals of organized religion at every opportunity. This I do. But I contend that it is not necessary to bash Evangelicals or Catholics when engaging in evangelism, when bringing the good news of Christ to people who need the Lord, irrespective of their church affiliation.

"There Is No Such Thing As A Catholic Christian"

    Though he doesn't seem to put this into writing, Rob Zins frequently states [including in front of our church], "There is no such thing as a Catholic Christian." He stated this again in a talk he gave in New York.¹ I think that many, if not most, Evangelicals would disagree with him about it.

    For example, R.C. Sproul has stated, "I know of no one who argues that there are no Christians in the Roman Catholic Church or no Christians outside of it."²  R.C. had apparently never met Robert Zins by 1995 when he wrote that.

    John MacArthur says the same in his commentary on Hebrews: "No doubt some Catholics know Christ."³ He says it again in another of his books, Reckless Faith, though worded differently....... MacArthur states that "most" Catholics do not know Christ as Lord and Savior. Notice he did not say, "all."⁴

    In the works of Martin Luther and John Calvin, I find no such statement as Robert Zins makes which would preclude the existence of one solitary saved Catholic. Moreover, neither Luther nor Calvin suggest that many or most Catholic individuals are outside of salvation. (I would invite anyone to find such statements by Luther or Calvin, if they exist, and please let me know, along with the citation.)

    One of the most prominent Christian apologists of our day with expertise in comparative religion is Dr. James R. White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. Dr. White is well acquainted with Rob Zins as they have worked together in debates and other events. In a talk on January 22, 2002 in New York, James White stated that it is possible for a Catholic to be his brother in Christ and that he hopes there are "thousands of them." James White's proviso is that if a Catholic did believe in the propitiatory death of Christ on the cross as full and only payment for their sin and thus were saved, such a Catholic would cease (by definition) to be a Catholic, because, according to James White, that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Of course, this begs the question which James White was addressing, "Is the Roman Catholic My Brother? When, If Ever, Can We Recognize Catholics as Genuine Christians?"⁵

   I would suggest that such a true believer as James White describes — who calls themselves a Catholic and is a member of the Catholic Church — such a person does not cease to be a Catholic but is rather a Catholic Christian. I affirm that such a person is a full-fledged member of the Body of Christ and is therefore my brother or sister in Christ. Such a "Catholic Christian," in my view, would be wise to begin looking for and soon attending a Bible-teaching church, one that teaches the true Gospel. Failure to do so may result in the seed of faith being scorched by the sun or choked by thorns. The person who combines new faith in the saving work of Christ in the context of good soil is the one who hears and understands the Word of God as taught in a Bible-teaching church and he or she becomes fruitful in God's Kingdom. [Matthew 13:3-23]

    James White even suggested that a Mormon could be a true Christian, especially one who had already known Christ, but who had unwittingly been duped into joining the LDS Church, having not given up their relationship with Christ and not realizing that "the Mormon Jesus" is not the Jesus of the Bible.⁶

    It is not uncommon for Evangelicals to ponder the conversion of Mormons without their having to leave the LDS Church. Dr. Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary asks:

Can an LDS Church member become a true Christian through genuine heartfelt conversion? The answer is "of course," and there has never been any evangelical dissent on this point.

    A second question is a little harder. Can such a genuinely converted person remain within the LDS Church? The question is partially parallel to the question evangelicals have debated concerning converted Roman Catholics, to which today there would be a widespread (though not unanimous) consensus that again the answer is "yes."⁷

    Within the larger anti-Catholic-anti-Evangelical community in which Rob Zins circulates, there is much confusion (or diversity?) over this question of whether Catholics might be saved without already leaving the Catholic religion. In Sacramento, California, for example, there is Antipas Ministries. Their web pages castigate Catholicism and Evangelicalism (as harshly as Robert Zins does), but still, they admit that "there may be some 'born again' Catholics." They go on, "Of course there are some saved Catholics." We probably shouldn't accept Antipas' word at face value, however, because elsewhere on their web site they compare Bob Jones and Pat Robertson to Adolph Hitler, all three considered part of the "apostate church" of our day. Moreover, they repudiate ALL established "churches" as illegitimate; the only proper church, according to Antipas is a "house church."

    I would suggest that Antipas Ministries is similar to A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism in that outrageous ideas are espoused and often left unchallenged.

    I personally sent emails to some fifty randomly selected missionaries and heads of evangelical and fundamentalist mission organizations. All of the 45 missionaries or administrators who replied stated that there are indeed many saved Catholics throughout the world. Among those affirming this was Dr. Hans Finzel, President of World Venture.

    I could go on and on citing Evangelical organizations, pastors, or theologians who consider some or many Catholics to be saved. Simply stated, Evangelicals diverge from Robert Zins on this point, and it is not a minor point. See also my comments about Philip DeCourcy, who shares the views of those I have mentioned above.

    None of the missionaries or the aforementioned Evangelicals suggested that Catholics do not need to be evangelized. Neither would they suggest that a church or group which calls itself "evangelical" is therefore inhabited fully and only by people who are saved. Anyone who does not know Christ as their Lord and Savior needs to be evangelized, needs to be given the good news of salvation, needs to be won to the Lord with words and with actions by their believing friends, family, neighbors, or other acquaintances. It is imperative that true followers of Christ develop friendships with Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Evangelicals, Atheists or others who do not know Christ, and when people turn from their sin to follow Christ, it is critical that new believer(s) start to get involved with like-minded Bible-believing Christians in regular church fellowship, in order to grow and be effective disciples of Christ Jesus.

    There is only one way to heaven, and that is through a relationship with Christ (John 14:6). The destination of everyone who fails to come to Christ to be saved, is the lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and the angels who fell with the devil (Matthew 25:41). This eternal damnation of the lost provides impetus to the cause of world missions and evangelization. We love people because God loves them and His love for us compels us to bring the good news of Christ to the lost. We exhort and plead with them to "be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20).

    Regarding Catholicism, Robert Zins seems to be saying that to be a Catholic is to have a fatal spiritual disease. The disease becomes contagious to Evangelicals (or to any Christians) who entertain the notion that there could be as many as one single true believer within the four walls of the Catholic Church. This view of Robert Zins is a departure from the Biblical doctrine of Sin or Soteriology, in which man is already utterly depraved on account of indwelling sin and must find salvation through repentance and personal submission to Christ, irrespective of religious systems.

    Though I haven't heard him say it this way, it seems that Rob Zins might say to Catholics that in order to get God to save you, you must leave the Catholic Church. Wouldn't that be equivalent to "There's no such thing as a Catholic Christian?" But doesn't the Bible teach that "God showed His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us?" (Romans 5:8) If then we were still sinners when we came to Christ, why did we not "leave our sin" before coming to Christ? It would sound absurd to say, "There's no such thing as a Sinning Christian or Christian Sinner." Even after coming to faith in Christ, we are still sinners stumbling heavenward. Christians are sinners who have found forgiveness and new life in Jesus.

    We must say that salvation is "from sin" and sin's eternal penalty, death. In a positive sense, salvation is God's way of reconciling us to Himself. The Holy Spirit will reveal to the new believer (whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc.) any sin and error in their life — a process which may involve time. Turning to Christ is how we are saved. If the church which a person attends is not teaching the true Gospel, the Holy Spirit will reveal this to the new believer. As a "new creation" in Christ, a true believer will endeavor to place him or herself under the teaching of the Word of God and will abandon any church which fails to teach the truth of Christ.

    And what of prevenient grace leading to saving faith? If you begin to bring a Catholic friend to your Evangelical church or Bible study and they begin to understand the grace of God in a new way and are attracted to a Savior who loves them so much that He died to take away the penalty of sin completely, and if they ask Christ to come into their life and then they follow Him in Baptism (by immersion) and continue to grow as a new Christian, learning the Word of God, but have never verbally renounced the Catholic religion, do you not have a friend who is on the Road of Life, walking with Christ, a born-again believer, one whose name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life? What then is the definition of "leaving the Catholic religion" as Rob Zins demands as a condition for salvation?

    Leaving things behind and following Christ instead is often a sign of true faith (Matthew 19:28-30). But the act of the "leaving behind" is not what saves the person. It is the act of faith in Christ's finished work on the cross which actually does the saving [John 6:28-29]. God is the one who causes us to leave the world behind. If we did the "leaving behind" in our own strength and on our own initiative, it would suggest either a works salvation or a cooperation in our own salvation, neither of which is Biblical. Such a performance-oriented act minimizes God's work both of salvation and of sanctification which He performs in the new Christian.

    I concur with MacArthur, Sproul, Finzel, DeCourcy, and the vast majority of Evangelicals who believe that being Catholic does not by definition disqualify a person from having a relationship with Christ and being a member of the true spiritual Body of Christ.

    In Robert Zins' world, it seems to be the case that if you fellowship with an Evangelical who names a Catholic as their friend, then you are infected. And if you have fellowship with an Evangelical who has had fellowship with an Evangelical who has named a Catholic as their friend, you are equally infected. Thus Mr. Zins assigns to Catholicism the imaginary quality of a spiritual virus (replacing sin?) which may have already completely poisoned the Body of Christ and rendered her as "apostatized." By virtue of my skepticism of Zins' view, I have indubitably acquired the dreaded "Catholic virus."

    One of the missions of Robert Zins then, is to extricate people from the clutches of what he derogatorily calls "Romanism" or from Roman-entangled-Evangelical-ecumenism (same thing to Mr. Zins as Evangelicalism), bring them to Christ (that part would be good), but make sure that they are completely separated from anything Catholic. No identification of even an ounce of truth within Catholicism. But it's okay to debate Catholics, so long as you do not create an appearance of theological agreement.  See below for more about these debates involving Rob Zins.

Charles Colson: "The Most Dangerous Person in the World"

    In his talk at our church, Brother Zins castigated Charles Colson as having "done more damage to the Gospel" than anyone else, on account of his cooperation with Catholics and especially the 1995 book, Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, which Colson co-edited with a Catholic (Richard John Neuhaus).

    About the same time Zins was telling us this at Grace Church of Glendora (May, 1999), Charles Colson was joined by 128 other Evangelicals including John MacArthur, Charles Swindoll, R.C. Sproul, Charles Stanley, Stephen Hayner, et al, in signing a joint statement, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration." In other words, after all the furor, Charles Colson was essentially grafted back in — if anyone thought him excluded. This major new agreement should have brought the Colson debate to a conclusion. Oddly, for Robert Zins, it does not.

    To be consistent, Zins should now point his doctrine gun at John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Adrian Rogers and the other 125 evangelicals who signed The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration and castigate them for finding agreement with Charles Colson. I may be able to show you that, in fact, Zins already does by associating himself (for example) with people who consider John MacArthur an apostate (such as Cecil Andrews and John Robbins). At the same time, Zins wants you to think that MacArthur and Sproul agree with him, thus he often quotes them. So Mr. Zins wants to "have it both ways"....he wants those who are fans of John MacArthur to rise to his [Zins'] defense, while at the same time, Zins entertains denunciations of MacArthur or criticizes MacArthur's views himself in order to impress those folks on the anti-Evangelical side. It's a cute little game that Rob Zins plays. It is a game of hypocrisy.

    I would challenge Brother Rob to tell us the nature of the so-called "damage" that Charles Colson has inflicted on the Gospel. I personally do not believe that the Gospel is able to get damaged. The Word of God (which enunciates the Gospel) abides forever and Jesus said that "not one jot or tittle" will ever disappear from it. The Gospel, therefore, stands untarnished and as strong as ever, forever. There can be no damage.

    The permanency and invincibility of the Gospel are documented in the Bible by way of a flying angel. In Revelation 14:6-7, during the Tribulation, we find:

Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth — to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship Him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

The angel is trying to convert the people who are worshiping the beast. Notice the use of the term, "eternal Gospel." The Gospel is intact, alive, and well during the Tribulation — and that has not yet come. Therefore, it is alive, well, and intact right now. No damage to the Gospel has occurred on account of Chuck Colson, or on account of anyone else. The Gospel is the Gospel for eternity. This is not just my opinion, it is the Word of God in Revelation 14:6-7.

    You may visit Charles Colson's web site, Prison Fellowship Ministries, and you will find a page devoted to helping people come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior [click on "Who is Jesus" — in the left column]. The entire Gospel is there: intact, untarnished, and well proclaimed. I would challenge anyone to find it lacking. Chuck Colson knows the Lord Jesus Christ and is His ambassador of the only true Gospel!

    After you have read Colson's web page about knowing Christ, tell me if you agree with what Rob Zins wrote in his newsletter "Theo-Logical" for the 3rd Quarter, 2000. Brother Rob declares, "We have been howling from the top of the rafters that this man [Colson] may be the most dangerous person in the world." Zins contends that Colson "influences others to betray the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Rob then laments that "Colson is well received in the Southern Baptist Convention." This is one of many salvos in Zins' crusade against his own denomination. [More on Charles Colson below]

Billy Graham May Not Be Going To Heaven When He Dies

    Zins' criticism of Billy Graham is especially aggressive. For example, during his talk at our church, Rob informed all of us that Billy Graham does not deny the existence of purgatory. Rob takes this from an interview between David Frost and Billy Graham on May 30, 1997. I possess a copy of this interview.

    It is true that Billy stumbled on this question. I will admit that. Regarding purgatory, Billy said,

"...I don't have any thoughts on that (purgatory) because I don't know. I don't think the Bible teaches one way or the other. Personally — this is my personal opinion, but I'm just going to have to accept it the way God has planned it and accept the fact that I believe Christ lives in me. I'm putting all my hope and all my trust in him. He died on the cross for me. He rose again from the dead. And he's offered me eternal life. I've received it. And I know that if I died at this moment, I'm going to heaven, and I don't believe I'll stop in purgatory on the way."

Considering that Billy was 78 years old at the time of the interview, but still in his right mind, I think we can forgive him for the slip of the tongue. You can see from the balance of his comment that he seemed to be trying to correct himself, but ultimately came up short.

    I exchanged letters with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association regarding the David Frost interview of 1997. They expressed regret over Billy's comment and stated, categorically, that Billy does not believe in purgatory or anything like it. They sent me copies of several other interviews where Billy denies the existence of a purgatory. They stated that Billy stands squarely on the Bible in this matter, including Hebrews 9:27.....

"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment"

    In Billy's book, Peace With God (1984), Billy comes out strongly against the concept of Purgatory. Here's what he says:

There are others who teach that after death there is still a possibility of salvation, that God will offer a second chance. If this is true, the Bible gives no hint of it because the Bible is continually warning that "now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:2). (Page 78)

    In Rob Zins' book, On the Edge of Apostasy [which I discuss below] on pages 240 to 242 he lowers the boom on Billy Graham. Zins states that Billy's lack of theological accuracy regarding Catholicism has "undone" his reputation and has led to his inflicting severe damage upon the cause of God and of truth. "Somewhere early on, Mr. Graham lost it, and there is not one indication today that he has retrieved the cutting edge of the Gospel." Let me paraphrase that for you..... Billy Graham has lost the Gospel, thus becoming an apostate, and we do not expect to see apostates in heaven.

    I asked Brother Rob after his talk at our church whether he believes we will see Billy Graham in heaven, and his reply was, "I don't know." That is sheer double-talk and cover up. He can't say flat out that Billy Graham is "going to Hell" because the people love Billy Graham and that would create too much of a backlash against Mr. Zins. But he can't say that Billy Graham is going to heaven because that would contradict his book On the Edge of Apostasy by suggesting that "losing the Gospel" is a minor matter.

    Fast forward six days to the Christian bookstore....... I confronted Rob about the implications of his criticisms pertaining to Billy Graham. I told him that he had stated that "Billy Graham is going to Hell." Rob said, "I never said that." Right, not those exact words. Listen..... if proposition A equals B and B equals C and C equals D, then, by definition, A equals D. A person who has lost the Gospel is a person who is no longer in Christ. To not be in Christ is for your body and soul to not be a temple of the Holy Spirit. To not possess the indwelling Holy Spirit of God is to be unregenerate. To be unregenerate is to be an unbeliever. To be an unbeliever is to be destined for an eternity apart from God. To be destined for an eternity apart from God is to be enroute to Hell, eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire which was prepared for the devil and his demons.

    Mr. Zins needs to listen to his own rhetoric!

    Back to the church. After Rob stated that he did not know whether Billy Graham will go to heaven, I tried to get him to affirm my own salvation.... I delineated the Gospel to Brother Rob and I asked him if I, Douglas Gwinn, will be saved. Rob affirmed my salvation. That was in the narthex of our church, six days before the bookstore incident (see below).

    Mr. Zins stated that he has never confronted Billy Graham (or any other of his evangelical antagonists) in person as to alleged misconduct or false teaching, yet Mr. Zins is willing to trumpet his complaints about them to the larger Body of Christ, in violation of Matthew 18:15ff.

    A brief personal note here . . . . My wife and I attended the "Billy Graham Mission" in Fresno, California on October 12, 2001. It was a thrilling and inspiring event with Billy preaching the Gospel just as clearly and powerfully as ever. The same was true in Pasadena, California at the Rose Bowl in November of 2004. Of course, at the age of 86, Billy's voice was weaker. But the message of the saving knowledge of Christ is unmistakable, persuasive, indomitable, and irresistible.

On the Edge of Apostasy — by Robert M. Zins (1998)

    The primary focus of this web page is to delineate my disappointment with Robert Zins' relentless assault against Evangelicals. Besides Mr. Zins' speaking engagements where he presents this attack, it is also depicted in his 1998 book, On the Edge of Apostasy: The Evangelical Romance with Rome. In this book, Robert Zins castigates Evangelicalism generally and targets a host of beloved Evangelical leaders as having compromised their faith or departed from it. Generally, the book is vituperative, i.e., Zins judging and condemning Evangelical leaders. Would that Zins could engage Evangelicals in debate without judging their relationship with God.

    As I briefly critique the book, I will comment on Zins' contention that Norman Geisler and Charles Colson are mere "professors" of religion and Colson an actual "apostate". Also very derogatory comments about Billy Graham, Bill Bright, and many others.

    On page 134 we read that Charles Colson has "truly lost the Gospel" on account of his collaboration with Catholics. "The theologians (such as J.I. Packer) have run interference for him, and have cleared for him the broad path of apostasy." (p.130)  On page 131, Zins asserts that Colson's words contain and depict this apostasy. [As an aside, I've yet to find apostasy in the teachings of J.I. Packer or Charles Colson].

    On page 139, Zins drops his guard momentarily and blurts out what he has meant all along, that Colson is an actual apostate, not just on the edge. On a matter where Zins happens to agree with Colson, Zins states, "We agree with the apostate ecumenists who state...." Then he quotes Colson and Neuhaus.

    On page 138, Zins employs sarcasm regarding Colson. "The sine qua non (qualification) of Christianity has been reduced to the litmus test of being able to walk, chew gum and say, 'God is good and God is great!' all at the same time."

    On page 139, Brother Rob resorts to ridicule toward Colson. "Charles Colson fills in all the letters of the popular game show, but still cannot guess the phrase to win the prize." Apparently a reference to the show, Wheel of Fortune, this is an outrageous put down of Charles Colson's intelligence, and is certainly not befitting of the servant of Christ.

    On several pages of the book, we find judgments being made about Norman Geisler and his colleague, Ralph MacKenzie. Zins critiques their book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Books, 1995). These two antagonists — as well as the others in Zins' book — are often called "professing Evangelicals" (e.g., p.11, 54, & twice on the back cover of the book). This is Zins' way of saying that the reality is not there, they are only "professing" (claiming) to be true believers; they may not be pretending, but are at least deceived. We can conclude this from other comments by Mr. Zins. For example, on page 18, Zins asks, "Have Geisler & MacKenzie used the occasion of social disintegration to promote the gospel of Rome, which has already been received into their hearts? We shall see."

    Mr. Zins uses the phrase "professing Evangelicals" during speaking engagements and elsewhere in his writings. His newsletter for the first quarter of 1998 is one example. Also, for seven years, the description for his book, On the Edge of Apostasy, at his web site used this phrase.

    In a speaking engagement in New York (2000), Rob accused Geisler and MacKenzie of "deliberately misleading" their readers in order to cover up theological realities about Catholicism.⁸

    On page 54, Zins accuses Geisler of being on "a dreadful death march" whereby "professing Evangelical Christians" are racing against Rome to find doctrinal agreement with Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims — having already found agreement with Rome.

    On page 64, he analogizes Geisler & MacKenzie's material as being a house built on a foundation of sand, which, when tested by Biblical truth, washes away to destruction. This is not a carefully veiled insinuation. Zins is "name-calling," a tactic he often employs. According to him, Geisler and MacKenzie are fools. Zins forgets Jesus' warning about what could happen to you if you call someone a "fool." [Matthew 5:22]

    On page 104, he declares about Geisler and MacKenzie that, "They were not faithful to the Gospel of Christ. They have done the opposite, they have betrayed it."

    In the talk by Brother Rob in New York (2000), he closes with prayer and informs God about Geisler and MacKenzie. Rob prays, "... these men are insane ..."⁹

    I received an email from a gentleman who describes himself as an "evangelical Catholic." He had spoken on the phone with Robert Zins. In the course of their discussion, Rob spoke of Norman Geisler very positively, and had said nothing negative about Dr. Geisler. The Catholic brother later found this web site and was surprised to learn about Mr. Zins' total denunciation of Geisler in On the Edge of Apostasy and at speaking engagements. This is just one of many examples of double-talk which I have encountered from Robert Zins. If you want to hear him commend Geisler, he will do it. He sometimes will tell you what he thinks you want to hear, which he did with me numerous times. (Another key example was where he was willing to identify himself to me as an "evangelical," then come to find out later he doesn't believe evangelicals are true Christians. This is double-talk.)

     On the Edge of Apostasy is a difficult book to obtain in that you can't order it at any bookstore. Online retailer Amazon.com usually calls it "out of stock", but sometimes lists a used copy. It was never carried by Spring Arbor Distributors. The best way to obtain it is to visit Mr. Zins' web site and place an order, or go to Bookfinder.com for a used copy. Of course, Brother Rob sells it wherever he is a speaker. You also might be able to borrow it through initiating an "inter-library loan" (ILL) at your local or school library. There are four libraries which hold it: Dallas Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Bob Jones University, and Pensacola Christian College (as of October, 2005).

White Horse Publications No Longer Publishes Books

    The publisher of On the Edge of Apostasy was a small outfit in Huntsville, Alabama known as White Horse Publications (WHP). The sole employee and entrepreneur was one Timothy Kauffman who published the books from his home. From 1993 to 1998, WHP published five books, three by Mr. Kauffman and two by Robert Zins. The first four books were anti-Catholic and the fifth and final book was On the Edge of Apostasy. I spoke with Mr. Kauffman (at his unlisted phone number in Alabama) and he stated that he shipped the remaining copies of On the Edge of Apostasy to Robert Zins (as of 2001) and no longer sells them himself.

    On the Edge of Apostasy was never listed in Bowker's Books in Print, though the first four books by White Horse Publications were listed there.

    The question which comes to mind is, "Why did Robert Zins choose such a small publisher for his two books, and especially his second book?" Is it because he couldn't find an Evangelical publisher who would entertain his work, or because he doesn't recognize any Evangelical publishers as being within his understanding of "Christian"?

    White Horse Publications, as recently as the Summer of 2000, had an extensive web site, selling their five books and many documents denouncing Catholicism. There was one page where Timothy Kauffman blasted Billy Graham with language more devastatingly clear than even Robert Zins. Kauffman stated that Billy Graham had departed from the Christian faith. I wish I had the exact quote, but the web site is no longer available. Suffice it to say that Misters Kauffman and Zins were and still are in competition to see which of them can be more disrespectful toward Evangelicals. They continue to collaborate in the publishing of Rob's quarterly newsletters which often contain strongly-worded judgmental language concerning Evangelicals.

Incident at the Christian Bookstore

    Getting back to the May, 1999 visit of Robert Zins to Southern California..... The Saturday after Brother Rob spoke in our church, he was featured at a local Christian bookstore where they were having a book fair. This was the Christian Discount Book Center in Covina, California. [Note: this chain of stores, CDBC, went out of business as of August, 2001]

    Rob had a booth where he was selling his books and talking with people. I engaged Rob in conversation off and on over a period of about 90 minutes. At one point, I had stepped away and was browsing the music department of the bookstore when I noticed Brother Rob involved in a vigorous conversation with a lady. This conversation went on at great length and intensity, drawing several people around to listen and to interject their comments. After about twenty minutes, I came closer so as to monitor the discussion. Three of the people were taking the side of "Regina" who was trying to prove to Brother Rob that she was saved, because he was challenging her salvation, calling her to account for the hope within her. The three ladies were repeatedly saying "Amen!" after Regina would speak. There was nobody chiming in for Robert Zins.

    Regina happens to be a member of my church and she knows the Lord very well and knows the Gospel. She explained to Brother Rob that she had left the Catholic Church, but she declared that several of her friends who stayed Catholic are also believers in Christ. Mr. Zins kept telling her that her friends are lost and that if she believes they are saved, she is also lost. She would need to experience and articulate a complete denunciation of the Catholic religion in order to be considered "saved," by the Rob Zins' definition.

    Regina did not back down in the face of Mr. Zins' attack. She came back with Luke 23, reading out loud the text (from her Bible) to Mr. Zins about the thief on the cross who was saved by believing in Christ in the final hours of his life. Shockingly, Brother Rob resisted this line of reasoning by Regina, at least as it might have applied to her.

    So here was Rob Zins, the articulate Dallas Seminary graduate badgering a new Christian (of two years) who had just joined our church. Rob was talking way over her head (and over mine) about the intricacies of justification and that she needs to repent and be saved. It was about the most pathetic sight I have ever seen. Regina was remarkably holding her own with him, but there came a momentary pause in the heated debate (after 25 minutes) and I decided to step in on Regina's behalf. I interrupted Mr. Zins and said to him that that would be "enough bullying of the sister for today." At this, Mr. Zins pulled the shocker of all shockers......

    Remember how Brother Rob had identified and confirmed my salvation six days earlier at our church? Now he sang a different tune about me. He turned to the manager of the store, who had stopped to watch the commotion. Rob said to him, "He calls me 'brother' but I don't recognize him as a brother!" How convenient! As long as we can declare someone an unbeliever who dares to confront us, we are then free to continue selling our books and move on to the next person, whose salvation we reserve the right to analyze. It's called "status by negation" and Mr. Zins is an expert at it.

    What is this business of "recognizing" whether someone is a believer or not? Is it simply because I had been asking Rob a number of questions about himself? Or was Rob just in self-defense mode because I called him to the carpet on his "spiritual judging" routine toward Regina? The only thing I accomplished was to get Rob's doctrine gun trained on me instead of Regina, and maybe that had value.

    How did I manage (according to Rob Zins) to lose my salvation in six days? I thought Christ was holding me and nobody could snatch me out of His mighty hand! (John 6:35-40; John 10:28) Had Brother Rob forgotten that I "passed muster" with him six days earlier? Being a Calvinist, he ought to know about the eternal security of the believer.

    It occurs to me that making a determination that someone is not saved — and then declaring this to others — is certainly "on the edge of judging", and must be a violation of Jesus' command, "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1). It is over the edge of brotherly kindness. I would never tell you that I think that Rob Zins is unsaved (i.e., outside of Christ). I don't believe that anyway. So, if you articulate any disagreement with Robert Zins, he may declare you outside of the fold as a means to marginalize you!

    At that bookstore, I was simply standing up for my Christian sister, Regina, coming to her defense when she was told she was unsaved, despite her clear testimony of salvation.

    Mr. Zins was able to persuade the manager to oust me from the bookstore. Strangely, Brother Rob would no longer speak to me or even look at me. Remember, he spoke to the store manager and not to me. I had become to him an antagonistic, unregenerate scoffer, unworthy of his attention.

    I then found Regina — who had walked away — and introduced myself, as we had not known eachother at our church. She was glad that I had spoken up. Before I left, three of the other people came up to me as well and introduced themselves. We all had in common a shared antipathy for the approach of Mr. Robert M. Zins.

    Shortly after the bookstore incident, I contacted the administrative offices of the bookstore chain. I soon received a sincere and heart-felt apology from the Operations Manager. He was very disappointed with how I was treated and was sorry that Robert Zins had conducted himself in the way that he did.

     In the middle of the 19th Century, there was a congressman from Illinois who was publicly accused of being an infidel, a Methodist clergyman bringing the charge. The accused recorded the incident as follows: "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood." The complainant was the Reverend Peter Cartwright and the object of his doctrine gun was Abraham Lincoln.¹⁰

Are We Called To Dissect Another's Rebirth Experience?

    It is important to be able to discern whether an individual is born-again or is self-deceived into thinking he or she is saved if that never did occur. Robert Zins, however, takes this concept to an unacceptable extreme. I have watched him. I have listened. I think he would be proud to know that I compare him to a surgeon or a medical researcher in the midst of dissecting a laboratory animal. He finds little glitches here and there, tweaks them a bit, and, voila, you really aren't saved after all!

    God's message of salvation is very simple: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father, but by me." "The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." "That I may know Him..." "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." "It is finished."

    I will tell you the Gospel, the good news of Christ:  True believers in Christ will be revealed at the Judgment when they meet Jesus and are asked to give an account of their life. Those who proudly claim good works or as having "done their best" will be sent away to eternal punishment. Those who plead only the death of Christ, the blood of Christ as full payment for their personal sin, the work of Christ on the Cross — indeed Christ Himself bridging the gap between ourselves and God, the God of Creation whom we have come to know in the Person of His Son (Emmanuel — "God with us") during our life on earth; all those who have this testimony are the faithful of God, His beloved who shall hear the wonderful words, "Welcome into the joy of your Master."

    I agree wholeheartedly with the Doctrinal Statement and The Gospel/Plan of Salvation pages at Rob's web site, A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism. There is no question in my mind that Rob Zins knows the Lord. Let me quote something else I agree with him about, from his newsletter, 3rd Qtr 2000: "Christianity is a deep and abiding relationship with God through faith alone in the finished work of His Son the Lord Jesus Christ." I not only believe these affirmations along with Brother Rob, I appropriate them to my life in Christ, to my relationship with Christ. I know that Rob does the same.

    Perhaps the biggest theological problem for Robert Zins is the thief on the cross. (This was the primary argument of Regina at the bookstore, but her attempts to simplify the Gospel were rebuffed by Brother Rob.) The thief did not know the five points of Calvinism, the relationship between justification and sanctification, between grace and faith, or even that Christ was being made the propitiation for his sins, the righteousness of Christ being imputed to him at that moment. He did not have the chance to "separate" himself from the religious apostates of his day. He also had no time left to study at any later-to-be-apostatized seminary.

    The only thing the thief had going for him — for all eternity — was that he became a changed man on the cross by looking to Jesus as the King of Glory who could save him. Else, why did he ask Jesus to remember him? He didn't say, "I know you will remember me because I'm a great guy." Rather, this was an act of repentance, a cry for deliverance from his sin.

    This is salvation..... very simple.... and not so difficult to detect in a person. There is no need for dissection. What Robert Zins is doing when to talks to people this way is to inadvertently substitute himself for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God Himself at work in our hearts to convict us of sin and bring about the changes He wants. The Holy Spirit also teaches us to know the Lord and know Him better, and to know His Word, the Bible.

    If Brother Rob is able — in 25 minutes time — to declare two born-again believers as intruders to the Banquet (Matthew 22), being dressed in the wrong clothes and not the wedding garment of the righteousness of Christ, how many other saints have been "misdiagnosed" by Robert Zins across America and overseas? What a dreadful legacy! What a horrific agenda!

    There is a proper response to false doctrine in the church, i.e., confronting it, exercising church discipline, etc. This is not what Robert Zins is doing. Rather, he is accusing people of being false brethren, people who do not even attend his own church. Thus the accused are not even afforded a hearing with elders or an ability to call witnesses and make a defense. Mr. Zins is the police, the prosecutor, the jury, and the judge; and the verdict is already determined: guilty as charged!

    This practice of trying to identify the tares among the wheat and pulling on them is a violation of Scripture (Matthew 13). Even one of Rob Zins' favorite theologians, John Calvin, spoke against it. In a discussion about "the communion of saints," [in the context of Calvin's denunciation of the church of Rome] Calvin writes:

Yet, to embrace the unity of the church in this way, we need not (as we have said) see the church with the eyes or touch it with the hands. Rather, the fact that it belongs to the realm of faith should warn us to regard it no less since it passes our understanding than if it were clearly visible. And our faith is no worse because it recognizes a church beyond our range of sight or knowledge. For here we are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect — that is for God alone, not for us, to do — but to establish with certainty in our hearts that all those who, by the kindness of God the Father, through the working of the Holy Spirit, have entered into fellowship with Christ, are set apart as God's property and personal possession; and that when we are of their number we share that great grace [Institutes 4.1.3]. (emphasis mine)

   In his Commentary on Matthew, chapter 13: 39-40, Calvin admonishes pastors and all Christians to maintain a diligence for the purity of the church, while at the same time warning us not to go too far, not to go beyond what Christ instructs in this matter. Calvin admonishes,

...those who proceed, with undue haste, to root out whatever displeases them, prevent, as far as lies in their power, the sentence of Christ, deprive angels of their office, and rashly take that office on themselves.

   The esteemed Baptist preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, enunciated his view of the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13) on several occasions. One such sermon, entitled, "Wheat in the Barn" is illuminating. Spurgeon clearly states that the Wheat and the Tares will grow together and are not to be separated until the angels separate them. He points out that the wheat in the Parable was not hindered in its growth on account of the Tares (Weeds). Here is an excerpt from that sermon:

The enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, hopeful that the false wheat would destroy or materially injure the true; but he failed in the end, for the wheat ripened and was ready to be gathered. Christ's garner shall be filled; the tares shall not choke the wheat. The evil one will be put to shame.

   On another occasion, Spurgeon elaborates again on Matthew 13:

Magistrates and churches may remove the openly wicked from their society; the outwardly good who are inwardly worthless they must leave; for the judging of hearts is beyond their sphere.¹¹(emphasis mine)

   By convincing himself — a priori — that everyone in the Catholic religion (and in Evangelicalism as we shall see in a moment) is already lost, Brother Rob has robbed himself and his listeners of an objective investigation. Brother Rob has forgotten the difference between the visible versus the invisible church. He can't see the truly regenerated invisible church with his physical eyes, and neither can anyone; our spiritual radar does not come fully equipped for this task. God alone knows the heart of man: "The Lord knows those who are His" [2 Timothy 2:19]. Therefore, Jesus withheld the task of sorting the wheat and tares from man, but will assign it to angels "at the end of the age" {we aren't there yet, but we wait in expectant hope that it will be soon}. The angels will not be sharing this assignment with men, nor are they worried about having enough time to conduct it, once they will start. The Word of God, therefore, forbids a special operations advance party (such as what Rob Zins is doing) to conduct reconnaissance pertaining to the separation of wheat and tares or even for the identification or exposing of the tares.

    Listen to the words of Christ:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son..... And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man [John 5:22 & 27].

    I hasten to point out that Rob Zins' leading elder at his sponsoring church in Vermont (Hugh Diggins) has informed me that it is our duty as Christians to identify "tares" and tell it to the church. [More about Mr. Diggins] My response would be that such a view unnecessarily fosters an environment of suspicion in the House of God. This is the crux of the matter which I am opposing in the activities of Robert Zins. Brother Rob's church props him up with a faulty interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds. This misunderstanding and twisting of God's Word by Misters Zins and Diggins provides Robert Zins with a fabricated and contrived Biblical support structure for his campaign against Evangelicals. [See below]

A Prophet Without Honor In His Own Town

    In between the meeting at our church and the bookstore event with Robert Zins, I managed to speak on the phone with three evangelical pastors in Rob's (then) home town of Rutland, Vermont. This was very revealing. It turns out two of them feel a long-standing disappointment with Mr. Zins on account of his "isolationism." They said that Brother Rob "refuses to fellowship" with them.

    The third pastor was from a Baptist Church within the American Baptist denomination. This pastor stated about himself that he occasionally goes to Moody Bible Institute for conferences and that he and his church is conservative in theology, unlike most of his denomination. This pastor said that he only "knew of" Robert Zins but had not actually met him. He stated that he had received a letter (out of the blue) from Robert Zins in about 1997, stating that a particular man had been disfellowshipped from the Reformed Bible Church (see below), Mr. Zins' church. He found this letter to be odd, as if the community was being instructed to ostracize the man in case he tried to find another church.

    One of these Rutland pastors said that in his many years of ministry in Rutland, Robert Zins had been and continued to be "the single most frustrating aspect" of his ministry, on account of Mr. Zins' separatist style. For purposes of this exposé, we will call this pastor's church, the "Christian XYZ Church."

    While I was at the bookstore, I said to Rob Zins that I had called some churches in Rutland to ask their opinion of him. When I said that the Baptist pastor was one of three I had spoken with, Brother Rob exploded in laughter and cried out, "That's the First Baptist Church! They're American Baptist and are all lost!" [I almost gagged] In other words, the entire American Baptist denomination is far down the "road to apostasy" and is so intertwined with Catholicism that everyone in American Baptist churches have contracted "the disease" and have forfeited their salvation. Maybe someone should inform Moody Bible Institute about this so they can be on guard for the Baptist pastor from Rutland!

    What Brother Rob said next was the most revealing of all. He said that rather than (my) speaking to the (apostate) Baptist pastor, "...you should have spoken to the pastor of the Christian XYZ Church!" I was dumbfounded. I had not mentioned to Rob the devastating comments about Rob by the pastor at the Christian XYZ Church. At that point, I knew for sure that I was onto something significant, and needed to keep following the trail.

    I had learned that if you want a reference on Rob Zins from a church in Rutland, Rob suggests you ask the pastor who considers Rob to be "the single most frustrating aspect" of that pastor's long ministry in Rutland.

The Affiliation of Robert Zins With An Unflattering Organization

    While surfing the internet, I stumbled one day upon what is called "The Trinity Foundation." This innocuous sounding name belies its true colors. Their web address is www.trinityfoundation.org  (Allow me to refer to it as "TF").

    Robert Zins maintains a link to this so-called "foundation" at his own web site but a mere Internet link is not the only connection between Zins and TF. Mr. Zins attends their events and lends his name as one of their leading proponents. He was a speaker at their annual conference in the late 1990's.

    Led by John W. Robbins, the TF website maintains a large collection of writings dating from 1978 to the present. One of the primary thrusts is to repudiate any association with Catholicism by Evangelicals, and to repudiate Evangelicals who associate with Catholics. Moreover, it is an attempt to repudiate Evangelicalism entirely. Let me give you an example...

    In 1999, TF lists a document (see "Review Archives") entitled, "Protestant Pastors on the Road to Rome." Near the end of this piece, there is a section said to be "edited" by John W. Robbins. (Did he not "author" it?) Robbins delineates a scathing denunciation of Evangelicalism. I provide an excerpt here....

Biblical preaching is preaching that declares the whole counsel of God and not just snippets from that counsel. Most "Evangelical" congregations are starving, living hand to mouth from the crumbs that fall from the pulpits. Neither the preachers nor the congregations suspect that there is a system of doctrine in Scripture, a system so rich and satisfying that no one need starve or go hungry, a system built upon the revelation of Jesus Christ alone, a system that answers all questions, and supplies all needs. "Evangelical" preachers have rejected the idea that the Bible is sufficient, and its corollary, the sufficiency of Christ. They deny that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation. They are careless shepherds, betraying the trust of their Lord and their sheep. Many of them are false shepherds, preaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It is not only Gordon-Conwell Seminary that is to blame for the defection of men to Rome. There are few if any Christian colleges or seminaries in the United States that deliver in the classroom what they promise in their catalogues. None of those that have any fame ought to be trusted, whether the name is Asbury, Beeson, Calvin, Covenant, Dallas, Denver, Fuller, Gordon-Conwell, Princeton, Reformed, Wesley, Westminster, or Wheaton. Institutions such as these annually train thousands of men in error; these men in turn compound and teach the errors they have learned in college and seminary. We ought not to be surprised by the defection of men to Rome in the twentieth century; it is a greater surprise that the defectors have so far been so few, for there is no substantial theological difference between what is taught by Rome and what is taught in most "Protestant" churches and seminaries in America. In principle they are already Roman Catholic. They have apostatized from the Gospel; in time, barring the sovereign intervention of God in saving them, they will find their own roads to Rome.

    How does this relate to Robert Zins, you ask? Because Robert M. Zins is listed as one of the original five signers of TF's "Reformation Day Statement." He is very much affiliated with John Robbins, and — as we have seen — the same kind of unloving approach to so-called "evangelism of Catholics." Notice that John Robbins has dismissed Dallas Seminary as "apostatized;" never mind that Robert Zins wants you to be impressed with his degree from Dallas. See below - Whatever happened to "Be true to your school!"

    Has Robert Zins confronted John Robbins and said, "Hey, that's my alma mater you are attacking. Lay off!" No, on the contrary..... The two of them are on the same band wagon.

    It seems that John Robbins (like Robert Zins, see below) needs to create a phony aura of acceptance and credibility among Christians. The reason I say that is because if you look at the "List of Signers" for the "Reformation Day Statement" at TF, you will note several (though not many) names of well-known Evangelicals.

    Far from being "excused from our midst" (as John Robbins arrogantly pronounces about Evangelicals near the end of his Reformation Day Statement), the names of several Evangelicals appear on the list of signers. We see "John Whitcomb." So happens I was able to catch up with John Whitcomb in 1999 and asked him about the Trinity Foundation. Dr. Whitcomb claims to have never heard of them and says he would never knowingly affiliate with such a group. Also on the list is "Gleason Archer." I spoke on the phone with Gleason Archer. He said the same as John Whitcomb. There is the distinct impression that John Robbins is attempting to capitalize on the "big names/reputations" of these gentlemen, and / or take advantage of their advanced age and lesser capacity to discriminate regarding to whom their names shall be lent.

    Another prominent name on the "Signer's List" was that of (the now late) D. James Kennedy. I contacted Dr. Kennedy's office a few years ago and was told that D. James Kennedy has no connection with the Trinity Foundation.

    Used to be, the signers could leave their name and email addresses. One time, I took the liberty of emailing several of the people who had signed it. One fellow (an associate pastor) wrote me back saying he knows that the Trinity Foundation is "cultic" but that he likes to be affiliated anyway just so he can keep in touch with their activities. He realizes that by doing so, he is lending any credibility that his name, church, and title might suggest.

    In November of 2001, John Robbins' review article compares John MacArthur's understanding of the gospel to that of Pope John Paul II, stating that they both believe in salvation by works. Of course, that would be a false gospel and would place John MacArthur into the apostate camp.

    Another "Trinity Review" listed at the TF web site is from October, 1979 by John Robbins. The title is, "The Virtue of Name-Calling." In this piece, John Robbins slams Billy Graham as follows: "Graham's gospel is not the gospel of Paul or Christ." So, John Robbins has been attacking Evangelicals for several decades and seems to have become a role model in this arena for Robert Zins, a Trinity Foundation enthusiast.

Little Seminary in Dallas Over the Edge of Apostasy

    Robert Zins received a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1981. Although I do not know how his relationship with Dallas has evolved or played out over the years, it is possible that he possesses the dubious distinction of "biggest critic and detractor" of the seminary.

    I exchanged letters with the seminary administration in the Fall of 1999. They informed me that Robert Zins frequently contacts the seminary to complain of a variety of things. At that time, he was complaining about a "Leadership Conference" to be held at Dallas Seminary which was to (and did) include among its slate of speakers the former Secretary of Education William Bennett, scheduled to speak on the subject of leadership.

    They said that Mr. Zins opposed having a Catholic as a speaker on campus and that he was adamant that William Bennett be scratched from the program. The seminary informed Robert Zins that that was not going to happen. The conference proceeded as planned.

    I might add that Rob Zins continues to use the name of this Dallas Seminary administrator in a derogatory fashion when giving his talks about the "Evangelical Romance with Rome."¹²

    Brother Rob should learn a lesson from the anti-Catholic school, Bob Jones University. Fancy this: Bob Jones hosted a Catholic speaker at their Chapel. Yes, this occurred on February 14, 2000. BJU invited Alan Keyes to speak at Chapel, this during Dr. Keyes run for the White House. The paragraph at the Bob Jones web site describing Chapel on that day stated that Alan Keyes is a man of impeccable character and integrity and that the University is very selective of who they invite to Chapel. Not just anyone can be invited. But a Catholic was found to be "a man of integrity." Wow, the entire school is infected. Get out the spiritual Lysol!

    Given Robert Zins' identification with the contention that Dallas Theological Seminary is "apostatized," is it proper for him to tout his Master's degree from a place that teaches such thorough error? Doesn't integrity suggest returning his diploma and renouncing his Master of Theology {Th.M.} degree from an institution which he deems utterly depraved?

    In his book, On the Edge of Apostasy, Rob Zins carps at Dallas Seminary in the context of the seminary's response to ECT. Rob wants his readers to know (p.236) that Chuck Swindoll was the president of the seminary during this time and that Charles Colson was a speaker at President Swindoll's installation in 1994. This is Rob's thinly veiled attempt to toss Chuck Swindoll  into the apostasy camp through "guilt by association." Think about it . . . . Rob has already labeled Colson as an apostate who has "truly lost the Gospel." And if such a depraved sinner as that could help to install Chuck Swindoll at Dallas, especially during Colson's involvement with ECT, imagine what a disaster this brings upon Dallas Theological Seminary!

    Since Chuck Colson is contagious with "the Catholic virus" (my phrase), Colson would transmit it to Swindoll and then the whole seminary contracts it. They will possess it indefinitely, I suppose, until they repent (to the satisfaction of Rob Zins).

    Pastor Chuck needs no defense from me, though I have known him since the early 1970s when he began to be a frequent speaker at Mount Hermon Christian Conference Center where I grew up. It would be difficult to find a man of God who has had a more positive, Biblically sound, and spiritually invigorating influence on people throughout America over his lifetime than Charles Swindoll. In November of 2001, I attended a men's conference at Forest Home comprised of the men from the First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton where Chuck was the pastor for more than twenty years. There were some 280 men at this conference. The speaker for the conference was Pastor Darryl DelHousaye of the Scottsdale Bible Church. The men all seemed to know eachother by name. The fellowship among the brethren was deep and real, a reflection of their discipleship and spiritual growth. Chuck's many years of faithfully preaching God's Word, his sense of humor, warmth of personality, and genuine care for people is still reflected in the men I met at their church camp. And this was more than seven years after Chuck was called to Dallas.

    Back to Rob's book ....... he infers that on account of Chuck Colson being a friend of the seminary, that Dallas is inattentive to the theological problems of ECT, and therefore to the errors of the Catholic religion. Zins quotes the Dallas statement:

The document (ECT) highlights the fact that a number of Roman Catholics are trusting in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and are truly born again (p.237).

Rob then criticizes the seminary for this positive remark about ECT. As I established earlier, Brother Rob becomes righteously indignant whenever it is suggested that there could be a single Catholic person who believes solely in Christ for their salvation. However, his energy would be better spent finding and witnessing to [once-born] Catholics instead of criticizing his alma mater. In light of the imminent return of Christ, Mr. Zins is wasting a lot of time.

Reformed Bible Church of Rutland: "Flying the Colors of Romanism"

    At Robert Zins' web site, he informs us that he is sponsored by the Reformed Bible Church of Rutland, Vermont. He may continue to be a member of this church, though he moved to Herndon, Virginia in 2003 and then to Charlotte, North Carolina in 2007. Rob is one of three founders of the Reformed Bible Church of Rutland, begun in 1988.

    Rob told me that prior to the year 2000, the Reformed Bible Church (RBC) was not affiliated with any church association or denomination. They then joined the Green Mountain Baptist Association. But dark clouds are on the horizon. The GMBA is directly affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The Reformed Bible Church, therefore, became a Southern Baptist Convention fellowship. An SBC official, Dr. Richard Land, was a co-signer of ECT, a document which infuriates Robert Zins. In fact, on page 230 of On the Edge of Apostasy, Zins lumps the Southern Baptists in with all the rest of the compromised Evangelicals, no different from the aforementioned American Baptists. According to Zins, they all "parade boldly down Main Street USA flying the colors of Romanism" (p.226). Other groups included in Mr. Zins' denunciation include Focus on the Family, Navigators, World Vision, Youth With A Mission, InterVarsity, Christian Research Institute, Luis Palau Evangelistic Association, and many more.

    In addition, don't forget what I mentioned above that Brother Rob laments that "(Charles) Colson is well received in the Southern Baptist Convention." This is the old trick of "guilt by association" that he uses elsewhere, such as with Chuck Swindoll.

    In other words, Rob Zins, by virtue of his ministry (CWRC) being under the auspices of the Reformed Bible Church, as well as by being a member of a Southern Baptist fellowship, has entered into an affiliation with an Evangelical association of churches which he has already identified as theologically intolerable for him and which he continues to assail. This is inexplicable.

    On account of Brother Rob's continuing repudiation of the Southern Baptist Convention, any credibility that might have otherwise accrued to Robert Zins and CWRC by virtue of affiliating with the Green Mountain Baptist Association is nullified. Stated another way, the fact that his church is aligned with the SBC, fails to furnish Robert Zins (individual Christian) or A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism (his ministry) with acceptance or stature within the Christian community.

    If we use Mr. Zins' own words about his denomination and apply these words in a more personal fashion, it must be said that his sponsoring church and his own ministry — like apostate Evangelicalism — are also "flying the colors of Romanism" (as Rob derogatorily stated it in his book).

The Reformed Bible Church Stands Behind Robert Zins

    In January of 2002, I exchanged emails with an elder of the Reformed Bible Church, Hugh Diggins. He stated in no uncertain terms that their church stands squarely behind Robert Zins. Most especially, Mr. Diggins asserted that Rob is not violating scripture by identifying the tares. Here is how he stated it:

You write that Rob is in violation of Matthew 13, the Parable of the Weeds (or tares). You seem to agree that among the wheat tares do grow. Did you notice in this parable the slaves who pointed out the tares to the landowner who sowed the good seed? If Rob is guilty of anything it would be that of being a "faithful slave" who sees the tares and lets others know about them. Why, even the landowner said, "An enemy has done this". When you look at the explanation of this parable in Verses 36-43 we find our Lord explains that the tares are the "sons of the evil one" sown by the devil himself. The harvest may take place at the end of the age but before the harvest the tares were exposed and brought to the attention of others.

Even the Apostle Paul did not hesitate to point out heresy in the church and name the individuals, (see I Timothy 1:20, II Timothy 2:16-17, II Timothy 4:9-15). The Apostle John, known for his emphasis on love, pointed out the error of Diotrephes (III John 9-11).

Shall we take a moment to examine Elder Diggins' comments?

    First, he compares Rob Zins to the servants of the landowner. I concur that Rob is a servant of the Landowner. Elder Diggins then makes a leap. He forgets that the servants only pointed out the weeds to the landowner, and did not point them out to other people. Elder Diggins states that Rob "lets others know about (the tares)." This then, is a crucial misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture. The servants in the parable did not point out the tares to anyone except the landowner. Mr. Diggins repeats this error by stating that prior to the Harvest, the tares were exposed and were "brought to the attention of others." That did not occur in the parable. If it did, Rob Zins would be justified, and I would never have created this web page.

   It is one thing to point out doctrinal error. It is quite another thing to identify people as being apostate, as being outside the fold, as being "tares." The individuals who are named by the Apostles Paul and John (referenced by Elder Diggins) are likely to have been men whom the Apostles confronted in person about their errors. Rob Zins has not done that. In each case, the Apostles had been personally involved with the antagonists. Rob Zins has not been.

    I like the way Warren Wiersbe commented on the Parable of the Wheat and Tares:

"Our task is not to pull up the false, but to plant the true. (This does not refer to discipline within the local church.) We are not detectives, but evangelists!"¹³

    Please note (above) the way John Calvin and Charles Spurgeon contradict and repudiate Hugh Diggins and Robert Zins in regards to the Parable of the Weeds.

    Brother Rob should be concentrating on winning the lost for Christ. To the great extent that he is pursuing his campaign against Evangelicals, he is side-tracked from God's will. To publicly name groups or individuals he thinks are "the Tares" (such as Evangelicals) and then to trumpet to the world his false conclusions about the spirituality of those he is accusing and judging, is a flat-out perversion of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares. It is unthinkable that the Southern Baptist Convention would tolerate this if they only knew about it. And if they know, the Southern Baptist Convention should exercise Biblical discipline with reference to Robert Zins.

What About Robert Zins' Frequent Debates With Catholic Apologist Robert Sungenis?

    In light of Brother Rob's constant admonitions and warnings about the need for Christians to separate themselves from the Catholic religion, Rob nevertheless has a long-standing relationship with at least one Catholic gentleman named Robert Sungenis. Sungenis and Zins held their fifth debate on September 7, 2001 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Mr. Zins also engages in debates with other Catholics besides Sungenis, such as Gerry Matatics.)

    Though I have never attended a Zins debate, I did listen attentively to the tapes of the Minnesota debate which was on the subject of the sacraments. This was my first time to hear the voice of Catholic opponent Robert Sungenis. I would have to say that Sungenis is an articulate speaker and debater, very persuasive in my opinion. In my view, Mr. Sungenis won the debate. But is it right to win a debate by being articulate, rather than by being Biblically sound? I found Mr. Zins to be more Biblically correct than Mr. Sungenis in the debate, though I thought that Brother Rob could have emphasized some of his better points with more enthusiasm.

    As I saw it, the biggest problem about the particular debate I heard (on tape) was that the participants were hand-cuffed by the parameters of the debate subject matter. What I mean by this is that at several points, Brother Rob could have inserted one of his best subjects, forensic justification, i.e., the once-for-all transaction of Christ's death immediately leading to my own salvation upon my belief in Christ's substitutionary atonement. This is obviously the best answer to any of the Catholic sacraments, all of which seem to be intended to augment Christ's "finished" work on the cross.

    Suffice it to say, the debates are worthwhile, though some tweaking of the rules could help.

    If you visit the web site of Mr. Sungenis, Catholic Apologetics International (CAI), you may purchase the Minnesota debate versus Robert Zins. Mr. Sungenis calls this the fourth debate. I counted five myself. It's notable that four years seem to have elapsed since the two Roberts last debated. Has there been a fall out?

    In the Minnesota debate (9/7/01), there was a portion of the debate allotted to questions from the audience. One question in particular raised my antenna. It was directed to Mr. Sungenis as follows: "How could Jesus declare to the thief on the cross that he (the thief) would enter into Paradise this day if the thief had never been baptized?" Mr. Sungenis responded that Baptism had not yet been initiated, and in light of that, the Catholic Church makes exceptions.

    Of course, since I had heard Robert Zins say to Regina at the bookstore (see above) that the issue of the thief on the cross was inapplicable to her in reference to her salvation, I was eager to hear Mr. Zins response to Sungenis or to this question about the thief on the cross — as Brother Rob would be allowed a one minute response. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Zins had not been paying attention..... The reason I say that is because his response was all about Nicodemus, with no reference to the thief on the cross, regarding whom the question had been asked. This was disappointing.

    Perhaps Brother Rob's participation in debates will cause people to be converted to Jesus Christ by grace alone through faith alone. I hope so. One concern I might have would be whether you can surprise your opponent and catch him off-guard if he has become familiar with your assertions and responses by virtue of debating you numerous times in the past.

    But if you believe — as I do — that debating is Robert Zins' primary calling, then you must agree with me that it is better to overlook the appearance of an unholy alliance and by all means win some folks to the Lord. Therefore, associating with Catholics to accomplish God's purposes is acceptable (in my view) and Robert Zins is hypocritical to preach extreme separation from Catholics. He is hypocritical to accuse Evangelicals of being "ecumenists" (which he means in a derogatory sense) when Zins, himself, shares religious activities with a Catholics man such as Robert Sungenis.

    I have been told that Rob Zins shake hands with his Catholic opponent(s) at debates. How would Rob define the meaning of these handshakes? Would Brother Rob shake the hand of a Catholic priest? How about an Archbishop? Certainly not the hand of the Pope? Okay, I'm glad that Rob shakes his opponents' hands, but he ought to lighten up in reference to the cooperation of other Christians with Catholics for accomplishing the work of the ministry!

    A debate partner and friend of Rob Zins in Ireland is one Cecil Andrews, listed as one of Robert Zins' forty-two references at Rob's home page. Mr. Andrews has castigated the 129 Evangelical signers of "The Gospel of Christ: An Evangelical Celebration" [1999], the agreement that involved Charles Colson as well as John MacArthur, et. al. Mr. Andrews is very upset with MacArthur, Sproul, Kennedy, etc. for joining hands with Colson. See Mr. Andrews' web page about this. At the end of his article, Mr. Andrews quotes James 1:8, suggesting that MacArthur, Sproul, and Kennedy, et. al, are unstable and double-minded, doubters who shall not receive anything from the Lord. It's a pretty devastating denunciation of the spirituality of  the entire Evangelical world. We can see that Cecil Andrews is on the same anti-Evangelical bandwagon as Robert Zins.

A Brief Word about the Protestant Reformation

    Rob Zins asserted in his New York talk (2000) that Evangelicals are joining liberals in "undoing the Reformation" but that Evangelicals are out in front of liberals in this respect. The only actual person he pointed to in this regard was Alistar McGrath, whom Zins claims had asked "whether the Protestant Reformation was still necessary." I have tried to locate this quote but have come up empty. In fact, McGrath is known as a defender of the Reformation.

    In 2005, Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom co-authored a book entitled, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism. The authors did not answer "yes" to the title question. Frankly, I don't know of any Evangelicals who have repudiated the Reformation. Speaking for myself, I am a huge fan of the Reformation and have read and possess many theological works of Reformed theologians. I read Calvin's Institutes cover to cover twice and would do it again any time. Three of my favorite Reformed writers are Charles Hodge, Louis Berkhof, and Anders Nygren.

    If Rob Zins is such a defender of the Reformation, why doesn't he listen to John Calvin? Brother Rob shouldn't pick and choose whatever Reformed teachings happen to suit him, but should rather focus for a moment on Calvin's Institutes 4.1.3 where John Calvin teaches that God forbids us to single out who we feel are the reprobate and who we feel are the elect. If Robert Zins won't listen to John Calvin, perhaps he would listen to Charles Spurgeon who clearly taught that the wheat and tares are to grow alongside eachother unhindered. If the Reformation means anything, it means listening to the voice of God in Scripture and obeying Him!

Looking for Support and Finding Divergence

    In my cursory examination of the extensive "anti-Catholic" movement in the English-speaking world, I have noticed a trend. Those who are the most vocal against Catholicism and also against Evangelicalism, expend great effort to try and find main-stream or otherwise popular Evangelicals who agree with them. I found this, for example, at the Trinity Foundation (see above).

    Another example of this is Robert Zins. He likes to quote R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur for support of his positions, but fails to tell you that both of them diverge from him at several critical points such as whether there could be a Catholic Christian.

    This insatiable quest for identity led Brother Rob to promote a book written by a close friend of John MacArthur. At Rob's web site, he sold the book Standing Room Only, by Philip DeCourcy (1999) for several years. What's remarkable in Standing Room Only is how DeCourcy's approach contrasts starkly with Zins'. DeCourcy speaks often of Charles Colson while critiquing ECT, but never disparages Colson as an "apostate" the way Zins does. DeCourcy provides lengthy quotes from Geisler & MacKenzie five times for the purpose of affirming his own positions. Contrast Zins who takes Geisler & MacKenzie to the woodshed, declaring them to be fools on "the road to Rome" having "betrayed the Gospel of Christ." DeCourcy would be alarmed at Zins' rhetoric!

    DeCourcy often quotes John MacArthur for support, and why not? DeCourcy was the pastor of a church which is across the street from the Master's College where John MacArthur is the president. Remember that MacArthur is willing to admit that some Catholic believers do exist, contrary to the claims of Rob Zins. In fairness, MacArthur has also said that Catholicism is "an apostate form of Christianity." (January 25, 2004, 6 P.M. service at Grace Community Church).

    DeCourcy refers to "the Roman Church" (p.92) and "their Church" (p.362) though he cancels this out by calling Catholicism a "false church" (p.106).  Zins would never say, "Roman Church" for he considers Roman Catholicism not to be a church at all.

    Finally, DeCourcy contradicts Rob Zins big time near the end of his book:

"(Evangelism to Catholics) is a must because although some Roman Catholics genuinely know Christ despite their Church, there are hundreds of thousands who remain blind to the light of the gospel" (p.362). (emphasis mine)

    Why would Rob Zins ever sell this book — Standing Room Only — from his web site, if it flies in the face of his own book, On the Edge of Apostasy? May I answer that? It's because Robert Zins wanted you to identify himself and CWRC with writers and preachers who are popular and evangelical. This is the flip side of "status by negation" — i.e., "status by identification." Rob wants you to think he's trustworthy the way John MacArthur is, but Rob also identifies with people who consider MacArthur to be preaching a false gospel.

Robert Zins says, "Evangelicals are liars"

   When Rob was at our church, I asked him if he is an Evangelical. He did not say "yes", but required me to define "Evangelical." I gave it my best shot, after which he went along with it. However, it would be more correct to say that Rob Zins prefers to put much distance between himself and the term, "Evangelical." Let me give you but one example of many.

    At a church meeting in Minnesota [September 8, 2001], Brother Rob told his listeners,

"Evangelicals need to wake up and this [the debating of Catholics which Zins does] is part of our way of helping THEM to wake up."

Notice his use of the term, "them." If he considers himself an Evangelical, he would have said, "... helping US to wake up." But since he said "them," he is excluding himself from being an Evangelical. And shall we not say that the need to "wake up" applies to every believer in Christ — including Rob Zins. I dare say that Brother Rob's love for the brethren has fallen asleep.

    I'm always asking God to show me where I need to improve, where I have sinned, who I need to go to to ask forgiveness, to whom I can show His love and show it better. I need to wake up. I need to get with God's program. How about you?

    In a talk in Long Island, New York (2000), Rob compared Evangelicals to the false prophet Hananiah. After reading Jeremiah 28 out loud, Brother Rob prayed and informed God that Evangelicals are "liars."

    Given such a resounding repudiation, who would want to be identified as an "Evangelical"?

Evangelicals are not true Christians!

Evangelicalism Will One Day Forge a Union with the Religions of the World

    One of the more grandiose pronouncements that I've heard Robert Zins make was in the talk in Long Island, New York (2000). This is available on his tape set entitled, "The Romance with Rome" (Tape 1).

    In his zeal to protect the true people of God, Rob Zins stated that our country — indeed the whole world — is in danger [from Catholicism and Evangelicalism], to the point that we are being backed into a corner and will have to dig down and "go underground." I don't know if he means this in a metaphorical/spiritual sense or for real. In any event he goes on to say:

"Not only will you have to stand up against the Roman Catholic religion, you're going to have to stand up against all the major denominations on the Evangelical side as well. And they will forge a union, not only with Romanism, but also with the rest of the world's religions. And that's not going to be pretty for TRUE Christians." (emphasis mine)

May I propose that if this predicted "union" between Evangelicals, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, and Hindus fails to materialize (in what time frame?), we shall declare Rob Zins to have made a false prophecy after the order of Hananiah?

    Did you catch the underlying presupposition of Rob's quote above? "True Christians" are one group and then Evangelicals are another group. Any questions?

    Let me spell this out . . . . . Mr. Zins is not only talking about individuals like Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, and other named people as being apostate. Indeed, Brother Rob has declared ALL of Evangelicalism as apostate. If you think this is just my opinion, you need to read the above quote again. If you feel the need to actually hear it for yourself, please order the tape set from Rob Zins. As incredible as it may seem, that really is what he says!

    Contrast Robert Zins with R.C. Sproul. Listen to what R.C. says,

"Have the evangelical signatories of ECT abandoned their doctrine of justification and embraced the Roman Catholic view? I do not think so for a minute. Every evangelical signatory of ECT whom I know continues to affirm the doctrine of justification by faith alone."¹⁴

R.C. Sproul does not and has never disparaged the salvation of evangelical ECT signers. Robert Zins does.

    We have learned from Rob Zins that Evangelicals are "liars" and not true Christians. Shouldn't Brother Rob introduce a new adage: "There's no such thing as an Evangelical Christian!" That would be the honest truth of what he is saying and people could know from the beginning instead of having to piece it together like I've managed to do at this web site.

Zins' View of Evangelicals is Shaped by His View of Catholics

    We have outlined here the many facets of Robert Zins' assault on Evangelicals. It has occurred to me that his expertise in debating the tenets of Catholicism is the driving force behind his proclivity for passing judgment on the spirituality of Evangelicals. His misgivings about the Catholic religion are transposed onto Evangelicals. You could call it, "apostacy by association."

   How does someone come to a point in their theological understanding where they broad-brush an entire movement of believers, some four-hundred million followers of Christ? Is there no mechanism in Rob Zins' heart and conscience which cries out: "Unfair! Wait! Not so fast!?"

    Self-discipline demands restraint:

For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness, and to your goodness, knowledge, and to your knowledge, self-control, and to self-control perseverance, and to perseverance, godliness, and to godliness, brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness, love . . . (2 Peter 1:5-7)

Love is the more excellent way, and other conclusions I draw

    The Bible says, "For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20) I do love brother Rob, but I don't love what he is doing. I forgive him for judging my spirituality. But this is not just about me. He is actively involved in judging the salvation and spiritual lives of all Evangelicals. I know a number of the Evangelical leaders whom he has attacked. They are friends of mine and friends of my family. They are not amused with Robert Zins.

    Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). Francis Schaeffer echoed the words of our Lord when he wrote that "the mark of the Christian" is love.

    I asked Brother Rob — in the narthex of our church — "Where is the love of God in what you are saying to us?" He replied that he does love but he must speak the truth. I told him he needed to follow the command of Jesus to "go to him" (Matthew 18:15), i.e., to Billy Graham and Charles Colson and all the rest of the people he is criticising. Brother Rob, however, shrugged this idea off as not applicable to himself.

    One of Robert Zins' stated objectives (in his literature) is to receive invitations to speak at Evangelical churches. His reason for this is to try and snatch Evangelicals off the "broad way that leadeth to destruction." While it might be commendable to "by any means save some," the pain he causes is unnecessary and hurtful. To broad-brush Evangelicalism as "apostate," is divisive, uninformed, and unfruitful. He is trying to surprise his Evangelical audience by saying a lot that they might agree with (anti-Catholicism) and then transition, ever-so-delicately, to try and persuade them that Evangelicalism is thoroughly aligned with Catholicism, is thoroughly corrupted by Catholicism, and needs some kind of spiritual lobotomy. I regret to say that Mr. Zins finds too wide of an audience for these unsubstantiated claims.

    Where is the love for Catholics? Normally, if you are witnessing and praying to win someone to the Lord, you express love toward them on a continual basis. However, tell me if you think the following quote by Robert Zins is a winsome expression of love or an ugly expression of disdain toward Catholics:

"In our town (then Rutland, Vermont), we have a Catholic building called the Immaculate Heart of Mary and every time I drive by it I just want to spit."¹⁵

Does he actually spit, or does he only want to spit? When I ride the Metrorail trains in Los Angeles, I notice a sign which is posted inside the rail cars. It states that such actions as "being loud and unruly", "smoking," and "spitting," while on these trains will result in a fine of $250.00 per incident. In other words, there are places where spitting is illegal. Spitting is often viewed as a dishonorable act, and that is what Robert Zins wants to do in reference to Catholics. Is this how he expects to win them to the Lord, by spitting at them? This "spitting" comment by Robert Zins is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard from a Christian, but it shouldn't come as a surprise considering the unloving approach of Robert Zins towards both Catholics and Evangelicals as I have documented here.

    You know, if someone conducted a business unprofessionally or treated many of their clients in a flippant manner, you would file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. If a doctor performed surgery on you and amputated the wrong leg, you would report it to his state medical board and you might file a malpractice claim with his insurance company. But when an itinerant preacher trots the globe, slashing at the wheat in search of tares, to whom and where shall this "spiritual malpractice" be reported?

    Robert Zins is not organizationally or personally affiliated with any evangelical organizations aside from the way his sponsoring church affiliates with the Southern Baptist Convention. His ministry (CWRC) is not connected with the Evangelical Council For Financial Accountability. The small company which published his books was not affiliated with the Christian Booksellers Association. And on and on, there is just a radical separation of Mr. Zins from Evangelicalism. Simultaneously, he may suggest to you — with stipulations — that he is within the Evangelical camp. I have already shown that he is not, by the testimony of his own words.

    Since there is no "watch-dog" agency within Evangelicalism, no think-tank to whom violators may be reported, I believe that the Internet is the best way to enable people (who search) to find the truth on a matter such as this. I could just "give it to God" and let it go, but I believe there are people out there who could be spared from experiencing what I did, spared from feeling what Regina felt, if either of two events occur: A) they discover and read this web site prior to hearing Mr. Zins; or, B) those who are hosting Rob Zins become proactive in modifying his remarks about Evangelicals in advance of any engagement. I am not gossiping or "judging" wrongly our brother Rob Zins. I have quoted Mr. Zins extensively and accurately. I have critiqued his writings and speech. If a person is considered exempt from accountability in the Body of Christ, then we are all in big trouble and are at the mercy of unscrupulous folks who would lead others astray.

     Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:12 that we are to judge those inside the church. So God commands me to confront brother Rob and warn the Body of Christ about him. And Jesus said we are to "judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). If we are to "judge" dissident believers, should our "judgment" of them be kept to ourselves? Information surrounding "judgments" can normally be accessed at courthouses. Rob has made his accusations publicly. He continues to assail Evangelicals publicly. I will continue to defend Evangelicals publicly.

    Therefore, I recommend that if you plan to feature Robert Zins as a speaker or debater at your Evangelical church, college, conference, or other function, you insist on the following conditions. (This ought to apply even if you are simply renting your facility for a debate or other event involving Robert Zins.) I suggest you ask him to refrain from bringing his book On the Edge of Apostasy. Tell him you don't want it on the property and you don't want him to discuss it. Ask him to refrain from criticism of Evangelicals, and just stick to his criticism of Catholic doctrine, or to preach the Gospel, or some positive theological subject or Bible teaching. If he will not agree to refrain from attacking Evangelicalism, cancel him.

    Jesus commanded us to let the tares grow with the wheat and that He will send forth His angels to weed them out at the Harvest. In spite of these instructions from the Lord, Robert Zins assumes the role of "Harvester," a misguided (yet openly avowed) agenda to purify the church prior to the Harvest. It would be noble if it weren't so unbiblical. To name what you think are the tares — and yank on them — is to violate Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43.

    We ought to be using our time in this life to learn to live at peace with eachother. We ought to be fixing our eyes on Jesus and not using our spiritual armor to devour one another (Galatians 5:15). We ought to be winning people to Christ (Matthew 28:18-20) not beating them over the head.

    My heart goes out to Robert Zins and his family. Brother Rob has expertise in the area of debating Catholicism; unfortunately he has added the bashing of Evangelicalism to his repertoire. Where will this take him? Is there sufficient demand out there to listen to allegations of waywardness in the activities of Billy Graham and Norman Geisler? Is God's family tolerant enough to be told time and again that they are outside of the Kingdom when they know good and well they are securely in His fold? Where is the love? Without love, Robert Zins is a clanging cymbal.

    In closing, let me say I am ready and willing to shut down this web site if Robert M. Zins repents of his critical spirit and ceases attacking his Evangelical brethren. I pray that this will happen soon and when it does, I will rejoice and be exceedingly glad. Such an "about-face" would include retracting his book, On the Edge of Apostasy. Please join me in prayer for Robert Zins.

    Brother Rob, meet me at Calvary. "The ground is level at the foot of the cross."

    I do not reject you, Robert Zins. I welcome you as a brother in Christ. Though you refuse to speak with me or to identify me as a follower of Christ, my heart will always receive you. I'm reminded of a little poem,

He drew a circle and left me out —
Heretic, outcast, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him in.

    Love is stronger than hate. And love outlasts hate. Reject me if you must, but my hand will always be outstretched toward you. Listen to the Spirit of God. Reach out today and take my hand. Meet me at Calvary.

1. Robert M. Zins, Tape Series available at CWRC, "The Romance with Rome" [2000] [BACK]

NOTE: To purchase any materials from CWRC, please contact them at: CWRC, 8511 Davis Lake Pky, Suite C6, Box 261, Charlotte, NC  28269

2. R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Baker Books, 1995), p. 31. [BACK]

3. John F. MacArthur, Jr., Hebrews (Moody Press, 1983), p. 241. [BACK]

4. John F. MacArthur, Jr., Reckless Faith (Crossway Books, 1994), p. 151. [BACK]

5. James R. White, cassette tape of January 22, 2002 available from Calvary Baptist Church, Medford, New York. [BACK]

6. Ibid. [BACK]

7. Craig Blomberg, "Is Mormonism Christian?" The New Mormon Challenge, Beckwith, Mosser, and Owens, Ed. (Zondervan, 2002), 329. [BACK]

8. Robert M. Zins, Tape Series available at CWRC, "The Romance with Rome" [2000] [BACK]

9. Ibid. [BACK]

10. Letter dated August 11, 1846, addressed to Allen N. Ford. As quoted in Elton Trueblood, Abraham Lincoln: Theologian of American Anguish (Harper & Row Publishers, 1973), p. 98. [BACK]

11. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, as quoted by John Walvoord in Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Moody Press, 1974), p. 100. It bears noting that John Walvoord was the president of Dallas Seminary when Robert Zins studied there. [BACK]

12. Robert M. Zins, Tape Series available at CWRC, "The Romance with Rome" [2000] [BACK]

13. Warren Wiersbe, Be Loyal: Discover the excitement of knowing and serving the King of Glory (Victor Books, 1980) p. 84. [BACK]

14. Sproul, R.C., Getting the Gospel Right (Baker Books, 1999, 2003) p.41-42. [BACK]

15. Robert M. Zins, cassette tape entitled, "Debate Q & A." I obtained this tape from the Twin Cities Bible Church, 1437 Payne Ave, St. Paul, MN 55101  Here, Rob Zins was sharing exclusively with non-Catholics, which would explain why he felt comfortable expressing the desire to spit at the Catholic building.  Remember, the Bible says that "everything exposed by the light becomes visible" [Eph.5:13]. [BACK]

Truly He taught us to love one another . . . His law is love and His Gospel is peace.

ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda, secundum verbum Dei 

Sola Fide - Sola Scriptura - Sola Graci - Solus Christus - Sola Cruce - Soli Deo Gloria!

The ground of our justification is the imputed righteousness of Christ

http://www.ccel.us/RZ.html

CrossExamination in Progress since 1999.

Everything exposed by the light becomes visible [Ephesians 5:13].

Pray for God's love to transform Robert Zins and CWRC

Drop Douglas a line if you wish to opine!

Updated December 12, 2009

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness (Romans 4:5 NASB).

Yes, I do a lot of "positive" stuff on the Internet too. Come check it out....