My Journey to Christ

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 This, we sang, was the 'newer rite' that had superseded the former 'types and shadows'.

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.

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).

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).

Prove that Peter ever preached in Rome or spent time there other than to be executed.

He can't prove it because he wasn't there except when executed. The New Testament gives no statement or hint whatever that Peter was ever in the City of Rome.

In fact...in all of the letters Paul wrote to the churches/Christians, either at Rome or from the city of Rome to others, he mentions Christians in each of them....he mentions by name a great number of them....and you know what, he NEVER mentions Peter!

Pretty amazing when one cannot establish the truth from falshood even when it's crystal clear. Which then one does think they remain catholic for some other reason than truth.

I suppose leaving catholicism would be similar to leaving ones home town they've grown up in for the first time. There is comfort in the familar once patterns and habits are established.... even if it's not good for you.

I’m sorry, but I can’t make any sense of your interpretation of the verses.

When Jesus says, “if he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a heathen or publican,” I assume this to mean:

1) Jesus is speaking about the Church that He founded.

2) This is the Church that “the gates of hell will not prevail against,” meaning that it will not pass away. It must still exist.

3) Jesus’ earthly Church is visible and identifiable as His (otherwise we could not find it, making His divine command nonsensical).

4) Jesus’ command is not time-limited. It is still in force.

5) If someone professes to belong to Christ, yet does not listen Christ’s Church, then we should regard him as a pagan or non-believer.

The only remaining logical question is, Which Church existing today is Christ’s Church. The answer only requires an examination of history.

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...

Your pope is not the vicar of the Christ of the scriptures...Why would we admit to something we know not to be true???

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.

So Jesus appointed Peter to head the Church...Then Peter denied Jesus 3 times and then ran off like a coward while Jesus was crucified...If Jesus was going to appoint anyone to head the church, it would have been John, the one who had enough faith to stay with Jesus thruout the ordeal...

But no, Jesus didn't leave us empty handed and he certainly didn't leave us with Peter...Jesus left us with the Holy Spirit...

Why would we Christians need a pope when each and every Christian is indwelt with the Holy Spirit??? We are indwelt with that same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead...

Jesus told us there would be no man to be appointed to the head of the heap...

The Holy Spirit leads us believers to study the scriptures...Jesus thru the Holy Spirit has never led me any where near a Catholic church...

Many of you claim it is the queen of heaven who leads you to her son, and her/his church...

I have no spiritual inclination to be a part of that...

>> doesn't he,at some point out that he is speaking from Rome???<<

When? Which speech or letter?

>> did he just drop in to be executed???<<

Well, in Acts 12 we find Peter in jail under Herod who was over Judea so he wasn’t in Rome at that time. In Acts 15 Peter returns to Jerusalem from Antioch where they had spent “a long time”. That meeting in Jerusalem happened about 49AD. Then Peter himself says he was in Babylon:

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Now we know that Paul spent time in Rome. He was imprisoned in Rome and spent two years there.

Acts 28:30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

Also in his letters to the Romans Paul never once mentions Peter being there.

There is absolutely no record of Peter having ever spent time in Rome.

’ The RCC tries to make the case that when Peter said he was writing from Babylon that he was really writing from Rome that that has been proven wrong time and time again.

So the challenge still remains to anyone to prove that Peter ever spent time in Rome. It hasn’t been done for over 2000 years and can not be done because it didn’t happen. It’s myth perpetuated by the RCC. Peter was in Antioch, not in Rome. There is more reason to believe Paul was head of the church in Rome than for Peter.

It wasn’t an interpretation...it was putting the verse in context with Jesus’s words that followed it....He was speaking to the deciples from the beginning...they then questioned him about it and he spoke specifically about forgiveness of a brother or sister.

It wasn’t about “church” doctrine...it was about forgiveness of a brother.

The church then and today is the body of believers in Christ. No matter the church they attend. The scriptures are the authority of which we determine truth....just as Jesus told us to do..We need not a body of so called leaders as catholicism demands....or their set of traditions, which Jesus also told us not to abide buy. We have the scriptures to determine what is true.

—The scriptures are the authority of which we determine truth....just as Jesus told us to do..—

Where’s that in the Bible?

Regardless, using the Bible to prove Luther’s doctrine of “the Bible alone,” besides the fact that there is no Scriptural support for it, is circular reasoning. The argument presupposes the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture.

The argument for the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture depends upon an infallible Church.

If we begin the argument by simply regarding the Bible as an historical document, we learn that Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

Only one Church in history has been in existence since Pentecost.

There is no comparable earthly organization in history.

Jesus prophecy regarding His Church has been realized.

Therefore, we can reasonably believe Jesus’ claims regarding His divinity.

Since He is God, He is Truth. He cannot teach error, nor, by extension, can His Church.

Therefore, when Christ’s Church writes, preserves, and canonizes Scripture, we must trust Scripture’s inspiration and inerrancy.

Catjolicism claims... it is the queen of heaven who leads you to her son, and her/his church...

It has been said by some that it won't be long before catholicism pro-claims Mary above Christ and that it is thru her alone we have salvation....doing so will unite various other religions who honor a female goddess or likeness to one...New Agers, Islam, Mormons, Buddists all have a "female" representative in one form or another....and over the past years catholicism has elevated her step by careful step....So I do believe this is quite possible with the direction catholicism is taking in todays world....and has been on the table for quite some time.

Certain poor translation were prohibited. You need to do just a bit more research.

I did...In the 1300's Wycliffe and Hus both wanted Bibles in the peoples language.... Catholic leadership burned Hus at the stake and used Wycliffe's manuscripts as kindling for the fire.

Hus's said..."In 100 years God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed"...and thereafter entered... "Luther"...and we know how that played out all to well.

Luther used Erasmus's new testament translation, which we know Catholicism refused because he corrected the Latin Vulgate, , and by doing so revealed how corrupt the Latin Vulgate was.

Later "Tyndale" Printed the first N.Testament in English language....who was fluent in 8 languages and known as "The Architect of the English Language" Tyndale and Luther worked together in Tyndale's translation, which Luther's had already been given to the German people. Catholics put a 'bounty' on Tyndale's head...which God foiled their plans. So in 1526 The first scripture in English was successful.....though catholics set out to burn these the very fact they did so caused the populace to desire reading of it all the more.

They were relentless to take out Tyndale and ten years later they strangled him and burnt him at the stake after 500 days of torture.

Tyndale's last words as he was being burned..."Oh Lord, Open the King of England's eyes"......and just three years later (1539) God answered that prayer as King Henry 8th not only allowed the Bible but financed it's printing...which was known as "The Great Bible".

The whole idea is Catholicism could not stop God putting His word into the hands of the people as they wanted to do in order to continue with their indulgences and suppression of the people.....God determined men should have the scriptures in their own languagest....especially since it's truth would reveal the falsehoods which were established by the catholic hierarchy and reveal the hierarchy was a farce... never instituted by the Lord as officiating over His people.

And you know what?....Few catholics today read the bibles the do have as most are dependant on what the leaderships says rather than to read the scriptures for themselves.

I have yet to meet or converse with a catholic who can do any more than quote church traditional talking points....never the scripture and when I use it they are completely in the dark.

The big problem is that too much emphasis is placed on the outward appearance of a man rather than the interior truth of his being. Sure it might look to all the world as if there is no sin and therefore proof oh his salvation is assured but we can never see what Christ sees.

Salvation is an ongoing journey. It is through grace which God freely gives even when we sin again. No matter how many times we fall, He will reach down for us. No matter how often we stray, He will seek us out. Our outward perfection means nothing to Him. It is a contrite and humble heart that seeks Him above all else that most gives Him pleasure. He is mercy.

If we sin after knowing HIm it does not mean His grace wss never within us, it means we keep proving again and again the reason for the Cross.

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.