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 This, we sang, was the 'newer rite' that had superseded the former 'types and shadows'.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

I personally believe you are telling the Truth. They were forced to defend the country. If he worked in an anti-aircraft unit it sounds logical.

What is even more bizarre is that Saul the murderer became Paul who wrote scripture that we argue over. Also David The murderous adulterer wrote Psalms that point to Christ. Solomon who had 700(?) wives and concubines wrote Psalms to completion from his father David. Yet here is the current Pope born in a country he did not ask to live in as a citizen yet he tried to defend as forced to defend.

All a madcap bunch of characters who God's uses as instruments of his love. What a amazing forgiving God! Out of personal behavior sitting on face value only, It looks like the Pope did less in his personal life than the rest. LOL!!

Praise Our Lord JESUS Christ for his True love for Humanity! Where would any of us be? Divine Mercy Indeed!

In my Sunday school class I circulated three envelopes marked ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. In two were U.S. dollar bills. In the third was a green piece of paper which had been decorated by my wife to look like an imitation dollar bill. As the class members examined the contents of the envelopes they were able to attest as to the authenticity of the contents of the envelope. They did not add or detract from the authenticity. They merely attested as to which bills were authentic.

Excellent object lesson. I will have to remember that. Thank you.

I interpret your comment as meaning “your were born again.”

Absolutely.

Having been raised Protestant and baptized in my mid teens, I considered myself Christian, but it was, in reflection, an ordinary way, with not much affect on my life except as moral code and toward honesty. It was only later, in my late 40s that I came actually understand my Christian faith and what following our Saviour actually means.

Your journey and mine have that in common. I suspect it is similar for many others.

My Catholic upbringing was definitely "going through the motions" Christianity. What the author of this piece stated regarding Christ, the Scriptures, the saying of Mass and the Eucharist are all things I can directly relate to.

Today, Christ is alive to me. He is a real person, the Lord of Lords, and the King of Kings.

When I finally, finally broke down my own barriers and asked Him to be my Savior, it was the most profound experience of my entire life.

I am going to read C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity this week. It is one book I have been planning to read, but have been putting it off.

Once saved, always saved OSAS?

Once saved BY GOD and Faith implanted by God, and yes, He doesn't give up on His children which, He has birthed.

It is God who has brought folks like us out of Spiritual Deadness and Made us alive in Christ (Ephesians 2:5). We did not cause ourselves to be alive, He did. We did not raise ourselves from being Dead in Trespasses and Sins, He did.

So once Saved by God is key to the discussion here, and not believing we Saved ourselves.

God implanted Faith in Folks like us, we didn't do it to ourselves. Romans 12:3 says "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

God implanted Faith in folks like us even a measure by His grace, and we did not do this ourselves.

The Faith Given indicates Eternal Life: The Lord Jesus Christ says "HE WHO BELIEVES HAS EVERLASTING LIFE" John 6:47

Why do we not Believe Him?? Why do we believe that we can take ourselves out of God's hand and are more powerful than He is?? "My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" John 10:29 Why do people believe they are more powerful than God?

It is He that has Birthed folks like us who believe upon Christ Alone for salvation. We did not Birth ourselves. John 1:12 "born 'not of the will of man, but of God' Says the Apostle whom Jesus Loved (the Apostle John).

Why do we believe we birthed ourselves?? Why do we believe we can loose the Salvation authored, given freely to us, and His raising us up from being Dead in Tresspasses and Sins? Why?

Yes, Once Saved by God and His raising us up from Spiritual Deadness is the key. Yes, "being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" Philippians 1:6, Always Saved.

EDITED????? Who the heck do they think they are to *edit* the word of God? How condescending of them to give God breathed, inspired divine revelation their stamp of approval. Like God couldn't take care of preserving HIS Scripture Himself. What chutzpah. The protestant movement actually removed some books from the bible which, at that time, was 1500 years old....just what the bible needed..editors!! And yet in this very same post, you said the RCC edited Scripture. I guess then, it depends on who does the *editing* whether it's good or bad. How hypocritical.

not hypocritical at all. When the Catholic church compiled the bible it was in its "raw" form, they edited the various writings, papers, whatever there was available and determined which books, letters etc. would make up the bible. Someone had to do that and the Catholics were the only ones around. The bible then existed, thanks again to the Catholics, for 1500 years, reviewed time and again by Vatican councils and approved over and over by the learned men in the church. Along comes Martin and his fellow "reformers" with their scissors and removed some of the books that weren't to their liking. I guess if that's OK with you then have at it. I prefer the complete version myself. They were not condecending at all, they were following instructions and establishing an orderly Christian religion for all mankind. Did every letter or sermon given by every apostle appear in the bible....probably not. Did the few passages which appear in the bible written by Paul encompass his entire ministry on earth....hardly.The bible itself mentions that there are far too many things that happened to put them all in a single book which, of course, means editing. I think that the Catholic church did a magnificent job and we should all be very thankful that she protected and preserved the word of God throughout sometimes a very troubled history.

Furthermore...the catholic church forbid the reading of scriptures Catholicism is not even remotely close to the early church they so often claim as their beginning,.....they left and forfeited that years ago and to this day continue to deceive and mis-lead it's members

The Catholic church did not forbid anyone to read scripture. Think about it, in the early centuries most people couldn't read at all and those who could, could only read their own language. Bibles were hand written by Catholic monks and were therefore extremely expensive. Only royalty, the very wealthy, and libraries could afford them. It wasn't until the 1500's that a printed version was available that people could afford and there weren't real many of those. Catholicism dates from the time of Christ and yes, they teach the same thing now that the earliest church taught. Don't forget that Christ promised the church that He would be with her until the end of time. She was not apostate until the protestants came along to save her, she was hale and hearty throughout history. Because the Catholic church is infallible, she cannot teach that which is in error, nor does she. You say that she deceives her members....explain how please, I say its impossible. You say that the bible was in play long before the Catholic church...let me point out that only the old testament existed with the Jewish religion and that the new testament was compiled by the Catholic church as she grew during the time that the new testament was being written. Without the Catholic church, we would not have a bible. While the church itself did not write the bible, she certainly collected the various letters, parables, stories etc. which make up the book. There was no one else there....the apostles, disciples and followers were the beginnings of the Catholic church and they, acting like the new organization that they were, wrote things down in an orderly fashion to preserve them for posterity....what's so hard for you to understand???

The Catholic church did not forbid anyone to read scripture.

Oh really....these catholic sources say otherwise:

The Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible.

Pius IV required the bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read .."even Catholic versions of the Scripture",... unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such readings was likely to prove beneficial.’.

(Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publications Society Co., N.Y., 1887, p. 82).

The following two quotations are taken from the Council of Toulouse and the Council of Trent in the thirteenth and sixteenth century respectively:

‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin;..... but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’

(Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)

‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing.

Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.’

(Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).

Catholicism dates from the time of Christ and yes, they teach the same thing now that the earliest church taught.

Wrong...prove the churches of Rome were catholic.....

The churches of the earliest centuries didn't operate as the Roman Catholic Church operates today...not by any means..... Catholicism might teach and assume that something a bishop or council did in the past is an example of the Roman Catholic Church doing something. But it's mis-leading and unreasonable to assume that every one of these bishops or councils of the past was Roman Catholic.

Christ and the apostles defined the church as either a local assembly ....... or the spiritual entity consisting of all believers.

(1 Corinthians 16:19, Revelation 2-3)...(Ephesians 5:23-32, Revelation 19:7-9).

..... but never as a worldwide denomination, much less a worldwide denomination centered in Rome and led by a Pope. The apostles taught that saving grace isn't based on works.....

(Acts 15:9-11, Romans 4:4-16, 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9)

Some have stated that a lot of Catholics accept Roman Catholicism not so much because of the evidence as much as because of their 'philosophical preferences'.

They WANT there to be an institution with all of the attributes the Catholic Church claims to have. This is why so many Catholics can see the doctrines of their denomination refuted, yet remain Catholics anyway. They're placing 'philosophical preferences' ahead of 'truth'.

(Colossians 2:8)

Therefore maybe the approach should come from a philosphical perspective once it's determined why they actually remain in catholicism???

Someone can claim they are saved and then go off and murder someone, have an abortion, tell untruths, post falsehoods.

Well most wouldn't if they are saved to begin with, without truly resisting the inner turmoil the Lord would bring on them for even the thought of doing so.

On the other hand...King David had a heart after God and yet he hired the murder of the husband of his mistress.

Therefore none are exempt from further sin once they are saved...the sinful nature still remains though thru Christ can be overcome.

But...IMO the degree of 'consequences' will be less than what they otherwise would suffer because they are IN Christ. ...unless they continue to ignore His warnings and correction. Then it will ultimately lead to their death should they continue in the sin He's pointed out to them.

I have seen those who are indeed saved determine to go thru life as they will just the same and despite the Lord's correction....interesting is He simply removes them in due time. But of course this happens to us all...no one escapes physical death...."sin brings forth death"...and we are still sinners.

The only difference among men is some are 'saved' sinners, others are "doomed" sinners...but we are all sinners before a Holy God.

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.