Posted on 01/22/2012 2:16:36 PM PST by Gamecock
The conversion testimony of Kevin McGrane, elder of Bury St Edmunds Presbyterian church.
I was raised in a Roman Catholic family, my father having been born in Dublin of Roman Catholic ancestry. Baptism, Confession, Holy Communion and Confirmation followed in regular course. After junior education under Ursuline nuns, I moved to a boys' grammar school established by Jesuits. The education was of a high standard (four years of Greek being particularly useful later). However, no student could take an 'O' Level in Religion as every examination board required study of the Bible, which was not permitted. Instead, we were fed a diet of Roman dogma, the sacraments, sacerdotalism, history of the Jesuits, and the Church Fathers. Catechisms instructed that doctrine was not always to be sought in the Bible but in the infallible teaching of the Church. We learned much about Christological heresies, but at no time could we have explained why Christ had died - we supposed that it was that we might have the Mass. Every week the whole school gathered for Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, where we worshipped what we were assured was the Lord Jesus Christ, in appearance as a consecrated wafer fixed into a golden sunburst-style monstrance, borne at arms length by a Jesuit priest amidst clouds of incense. This, we sang, was the 'newer rite' that had superseded the former 'types and shadows'.
From Romanism to Atheism
The great tragedy was that there was never anything more than crumbs of truth to be gathered - a starvation diet of Scripture alongside a surfeit of error. Even my father, who hardly accepted the Vatican II reforms promoting a more enlightened view of the Bible, became critical of this policy when I left the Roman fold. And leave I did. At sixteen, though convincingly devout, I knew this heritage was slipping like sand through my fingers. I had no safe grounds for believing this dogma, and would no longer do so. My parents referred me to the parish priest, who plied me with liquor but could not induce me to recant. For me, the pursuit of truth became an overriding aim, which included opposing error, superstition and hypocrisy. I rapidly drifted into atheism, keenly pointing out to my classmates the unreasonableness of Roman dogma. I refused to attend Mass with my family, or the compulsory Masses at school. I was prepared to accept any sanctions that might be imposed. With regard to truth, I felt this would be found through the scientific enterprise, and thus it was that I became a physics undergraduate at the University of Oxford. It was easier to be a radical atheist at Oxford, away from Roman Catholic pressure, but I was also exposed to those of genuinely Christian convictions: one training for the ministry at Wycliffe Hall; another, John Hughes, a student at my college; and others. I spent many hours discussing theology with them, and also came into contact with the theologian Michael Green, then Rector of St Aldate's. I read books given to me on Christian apologetics, but these, and all the discussions, merely served to sharpen my counter arguments.
Unyielding spiritual blindness
Those who knew me as an atheist have spoken of my unyielding spiritual blindness. My response to evangelism was anything but indifference or apathy, more a reaction of fighting fire with fire. I distributed atheistic tracts, and had a determined zeal to promote atheist ideals. I should add that this was not like the contemporary New Atheist brand, which sneers and peddles weak discredited arguments. The likes of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would have dismayed me as much then as now.
But my faith in science as a path to truth was severely shaken when I discovered at Oxford a systemic corruption in the enterprise. Science had a fatal flaw: human nature. This was a devastating and life-changing experience - the second time the bottom had fallen out of my world. Later, coming to understand more of the philosophy of science, I have never resiled from the stand I took against the corruption of science that I glimpsed at Oxford, and have seen with greater clarity since. As an idealist, perhaps, I had a very high view of the scientific enterprise, but I now see that atheism will eventually destroy it.
After leaving Oxford, I started a job in radar engineering in Chelmsford, and some months later arrived in Southampton to pursue further studies in electronics. Three hours after moving to the city, I was confronted by a Christian couple doing door-to-door evangelism. They asked me where I had studied previously. 'Oxford University,' I replied. 'That's interesting,' said the woman, 'Which college?' 'Hertford College,' I answered. 'Really? Did you know a student there called John Hughes?' 'Yes,' I responded, 'He often came to my room for discussions about Christianity.' 'He's my brother,' she replied. 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!' (Rom. 11:33).
I was invited to attend a course of Bible studies, but the leaders were ill-prepared for presentations of alternative persuasive answers to their questions. They eventually asked me to stop attending Bible studies - I mention this to their shame as well as mine, and as an example never to emulate - one of them stating that I was not interested in truth. Such a statement was quite unfair: was it not precisely because the Apostle Paul understood the implications of Christian doctrine and had a passion for what he believed to be the truth that he was so zealous to extirpate the church? Likewise, I was far from apathetic about truth, and had made bold and difficult adjustments in my life in my search for it. Yet it was a zeal not according to knowledge.
I was angered and stung into reading more Christian apologetics. The arguments seemed no more persuasive than before, but now the Scripture verses underpinning them came to me as hammer blows. Why should those sentences leap off the page like a battering ram against the strongholds of my mind? How could these mere words land such devastating blows? Prayer was being made for me, and the Holy Spirit was convicting me of sin, righteousness and judgment, yet also showing me the way of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ - not through the lens of Roman Catholicism, but through the Word of God. The force of truth was irresistible, and I was granted repentance unto life. 'Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD' (Psa. 25:7).
From darkness to light
I was given a Bible that day, which I read avidly, and that week I ventured into a Christian bookshop in Southampton and was amazed at the treasury of books available. The Lord, there and then, gave me a love of Reformed truth, and I was delighted to come away that day with Hodge on The Westminster Confession of Faith, Cunningham on The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, and a Greek New Testament. Before I returned to Chelmsford I had come to Presbyterian convictions, though such was a rather exotic species in those days.
The reaction of my parents was actually somewhat favourable to begin with: to be a Christian was surely better than to be an atheist. But when it began to dawn that this Christianity was decidedly Protestant, and Calvinist, and that I wanted them to know and believe the gospel, then a certain amount of antagonism became evident. My father quite genuinely enquired whether there were as many as twenty persons in the world who could possibly believe such things.
During my time at Chelmsford I regularly studied biblical truth within the framework of the Westminster Confession with Dennis Lewis and John Titcombe (who served as elders in the London congregations of the Free Presbyterian and Free Church of Scotland respectively before their call to be with the Lord), praying that God would again revive a commitment to full-orbed Reformed truth in England, and in Chelmsford in particular. In 1986 I attended the London Presbyterian Conference, which took the first tentative steps towards a Presbyterian denomination. I married and removed to Bury St Edmunds without yet seeing an answer to those prayers for Chelmsford, but God surely answered them by raising up a Presbyterian church in that town and elsewhere within a few years. Indeed, in 1991 my family, with a number of others, were founder members of Bury St Edmunds Presbyterian Church, where I continue to serve as a ruling elder.
'Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen' (Rev. 7:12).
You still evade proving that Rome's churches were catholic. Why is that?
Could it be because when one looks closer at we see that they weren't?... That in fact when catholicism rose was when it actually instituted false teachings from that of the Christian Community and sought instead to establish it's own hierarchy against the will of the Christian Community at that time?
Mere Christainity is an excellent book. You will only regret not having read it sooner.
Little bitty old lie there, I think. It being the UK, the "'O' Level" exam in Religion requires study of Protestant exegesis from a bunch of Protestant, mostly Anglican, sources. (Example syllabus)
I don't recognize a single source cited in that syllabus as Catholic. Would you send your children to a Presbyterian school that encouraged them to study for an exam on "religion," which was really strictly Catholic doctrine and a Catholic view of church history, with a reading list of only Catholic sources? Didn't think so.
There is substance to this. If you look at all the various evangelical organizations and events and fellowships that transcend denominations, and interact with such various Christians for years, you see that there is a basic and powerful unity of the Spirit that is not based upon identification with a particular church, but is based upon a shared Scripture-based conversion and relationship with Christ.
There are many things we can do disagree on but it been my experience that we have a spontaneous unity upon meeting another born-again Christian who is “in the Spirit” no matter where they are from, that is greater the differences among such.
“This is the Lord’s doing and is marvelous our eyes,” (Psalm 18:24) even though there certainly needs to be more complete and organizational unity, while comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not achieved.
There is substance to this. If you look at all the various evangelical organizations and events and fellowships that transcend denominations, and interact with such various Christians for years, you see that there is a basic and powerful unity of the Spirit that is not based upon identification with a particular church, but is based upon a shared Scripture-based conversion and relationship with Christ.
There are many things we can do disagree on but it been my experience that we have a spontaneous unity upon meeting another born-again Christian who is “in the Spirit” no matter where they are from, that is greater the differences among such.
“This is the Lord’s doing and is marvelous our eyes,” (Psalm 18:24) even though there certainly needs to be more complete and organizational unity, while comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not achieved.
There is substance to this. If you look at all the various evangelical organizations and events and fellowships that transcend denominations, and interact with such various Christians for years, you see that there is a basic and powerful unity of the Spirit that is not based upon identification with a particular church, but is based upon a shared Scripture-based conversion and relationship with Christ.
There are many things we can do disagree on but it been my experience that we have a spontaneous unity upon meeting another born-again Christian who is “in the Spirit” no matter where they are from, that is greater the differences among such.
“This is the Lord’s doing and is marvelous our eyes,” (Psalm 18:24) even though there certainly needs to be more complete and organizational unity, while comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not achieved.
Sorry for the triplets. The page did not show it went thru with the posting, but remained in the editing mode. Must of sensed the incoming solar flare about to hit in about (AM EST.
The Catholic church can made no blanket claim on me or anyone for the simple fact of being baptized.
Scripture teaches that we are baptized into Christ, not a church.
I do not recognize as legitimate their blanket claims of ownership over anyone who is baptized, no matter when or where. It's a power grab, plain and simple. Just a matter of trying to control and bring into bondage.
Because if that claim is true, then the church can then claim authority over that person, to tell them what to do. That's just a control issue on their part.
FOTFLOL!!!
yes there were, someone had to prevail, and the Catholic church did. Would you expect anything less from the church that Jesus Himself created?????Now to the papacy....as the church grew she recognized that, in order to maintain a semblance of continuity she needed a centralized position of authority. The Pope is not a special human being other than the fact that he holds a high office. He is the titular leader of more than 1 billion human believers and he is their inspiration as to the understanding of the Christian faith. Believe or don't, it doesn't matter...he is still the head of ALL CHRISTIANITY on Earth...
Acts 11:25-26 25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.
That is so not true. If he really thinks that, he's more deluded than he realizes, as is anyone who agrees with it.
He may be the head of all Catholics on Earth, but since Catholic does not by default equal Christian, he can lay NO claim to being the head of all Christians on Earth.
The head of the church is Jesus, not the pope.
Ephesians 5:23-32 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Amen Brother!
It's also been known to cause a lot of gas (hot air). ;o)
oh please...doesn't he,at some point out that he is speaking from Rome??? did he just drop in to be executed??? if the early church said he was in Rome, and if the Catholic church says that he was in Rome, why should we doubt it???
That statement reminds me much of the government and media we have today and the power they want over the freeflow of information, it's a secular liberal viewpoint as much as a carries the idea of power and control over the masses.
....Therefore your statement would be true in the eyes of one living under Catholicism, better it is to search the actual Historical evidence rather then simply believing what one is told by the church (their media)... instead of the actual evidence available.P> Lets remember....By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 AD, it has been restricted to only one language, the Latin Vulgate! The Catholic Church of Rome refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed!
... This was because only the priests were educated to understand Latin, and this gave the church ultimate power… a power to rule without question... power to deceive... power to extort money from the masses. and they did just that.
Nobody could question their “Biblical” teachings, because few people other than priests could read Latin. The church capitalized on this forced-ignorance through the 1,000 year period from 400 AD to 1,400 AD knows as the “Dark and Middle Ages”....which the catholic churchof rome brought on by thier various means of forced submission and seeking the power they desired over the people.
Pope Leo the Tenth established a practice called the “selling of indulgences” as a way to extort money from the people..... He offered forgiveness of sins for a fairly small amount of money. For a little bit more money, you would be allowed to indulge in a continuous lifestyle of sin, such as keeping a mistress.
Also, through the invention of “Purgatory”, you could purchase the salvation of your loved-one’s souls. The church taught the ignorant masses,.... “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the troubled soul from Purgatory springs!”... Pope Leo the Tenth showed his true feelings when he said, ......“The fable of Christ has been quite profitable to us!”
And catholics wonder why the Reformation?
Enter then the men who God raised up to combat the false teachings and corruption in the church, which had been taken over by an institute not in the least representative of Christianity.....Great men of God such as:
"Wycliffe"...."Luther"..."Calvin"..."Zwingli" and others....for these millions turned away from the Pope's claim to infallibility and declaring Himself GOD. ( "Our God no longer reigns. He has resigned all power to the Pope" - Tertullian)).
....The people once more could serve God freely and be free from Papal authority because they now would have the scriptures avaiable to them in their own languages.
Rather like what we're fighting today in the political arena....for our freedom to worship and choose and be a nation once again under God without the constraints of a governing power or the free flow of information.
No they didn't....again this is what you've been taught but the Historical evidence says otherwise.
of course the head of the church is Jesus, we all know that, however what you refuse to admit is that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth...Christ isn't here in person right now, He, of course was, but he ascended into Heaven. He did , however, appoint Peter to head the church on earth and through succession, his followers. Since there is only one true christian church in the world, the Pope is the head of it. I do not deny that there are many denominations within the CXhristian church, but they are considered to be our separated brethren. We are not enemies, we are brethren....come back into the fold and we will again be as one. If you cannot rejoin us, please enumerate your objections to being Catholic and we'll see if we can overcome your protestations (note the word?)
what about verses 21 and 22 which Jesus spoke right after this . . .?
... Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? .....
... Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
As we can see from the context and reading before and after, Verse 17 is not takling about alienating a brother or sister because he or she will not accept the doctrines of a church.
I evade nothing. there were, of course dissidents around at the time that christianity was being nurtured. Various councils called by the true church separated those in error from the true church. How can we be certain that only the truth survived. Because Christ Himself promised that it would. The Catholic church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. While there were many and various heresies throughout the ages, none survived and neither will the "reformation". The Catholic church is 2012 years old and has survived numerous challenges throughout the years and will continue to do so. I don't for the life of me, understant what the opposition to the truth of the Catholic church is. I understand that being a Catholic is harder than being a protestant, but that alone shouldn't keep anyone from the truth. What's your problem??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.