The Gnostic Origins of Roman Catholicism

This book is not a deep theological work; however, it does lay out a historical continuum that puts into focus some of the divisions that exist in the church today. Dr. Ken's book provides an excellent, brief overview of what happened and how it has impacted Biblical Christianity today. It is an excellent starter book for the non-theologically inclined. Rome became the dominant church in the 3rd century AD because of its geographical location. Bishops from around the Mediterranean Sea met yearly and the objective was to keep to a minimum of travel time to gather as a body of church bishops. As such, Rome was the most central for gathering together to discuss church and faith issues. Sadly because power has a tendency to corrupt, Rome gained power through being the host city for the bishops. However, not all the bishops liked what was occurring in the growing Roman church. As history has shown us when people get power, they don't want to lose it, and go to great lengths to keep power and strengthen their holds on that power. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!"Rome's practice was not to exalt truth, but to adapt by merging pagan customs and ideas, into the doctrines of the faith. Rome incorporated so many of the Babylonian Mystery Religious beliefs into the church and shouted down dissent over the centuries that followed. Dr. Ken's book can be appreciated because he has synthesized nearly 2,000 years of Roman Catholicism. In the larger frame of understanding, you gain insights as to why Rome has not changed, whether it be the Council of Trent or Vatican II. Rome has not changed and as they say, all roads lead to Rome.Rome set the theological course of history by its "Allegorical" interpretation of Scripture, and its teachings that the Church "Replaced" Israel in God's plan of history. Neither of which is proper in the first point, and second because it is not Biblical. It chose the "Allegorical" interpretation of Scripture because the book of Revelation was just a bit too much looking like Rome. As to the Church "replacing" Israel, known as "supersessionism" is Biblical heresy. The Apostle Paul made a clear explanation of Israel and its future in the Epistle of Romans, especially chapters 9-12. Rome is the responsible party for "anti-Semitism". Doubt it, read the words of Martin Luther concerning the Jews. They [Luther's comments] became the grist of Adolf Hitler's "Final Solution" for the Jews.Dr. Ken's book comes along at a time when the Ecumenical movement has given the impression that the Roman Catholic Church has changed. This little book corrects the big picture.Rev. Robert H. Reid

This is research based on the history of the Universal Church and how, in the beginning, was following sound doctrine. About 300 years this sound doctrine was tainted with heresies from Gnostic beliefs.Very enlightening.

All of this authors books are smaller than your average book but that's only because I find this author cuts to the chase and is a real page turner. Nothing but facts, most (if not all) of his facts are historically cited which is a must for such claims within books like this. I ordered about 6 of his books after reading just one and all of them share the same intrigue and interest. I think this is my favorite one so far. Although I disagree with the authors understanding of who the antichrist religion is, that's not to take anything away from his historical research and facts on the Catholic church. I personally conclude the antichrist religion is Islam, and not Roman Catholicism - but again, this is up for theological debate that has no bearing of my love for this author.

The information brought together in this book is revealing and should be a warning to those in power as well as those individuals under the influence of those in power.... the Roman Catholic Church. The author of this book has organized the information in a manor that is easy to read with each chapter building upon the last. In this book Ken Johnson collects the early church father's doctrinal foundations and warnings made to the Roman Church and shows how those doctrines and warning have been ignored to this day! There are tons of references and notes to allow the reader to follow up and verify Ken's research. I highly recommend this book for all people but especially for individuals seeking to better understand God's Word.

I own and have read a decent amount of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I also have read a large portion of David Bercot’s works, and with that said, I found agreement with much of what the author examined. But, the few times I had questions and sought directions to the author’s sources, I found troubling and questionable practices for documenting his research as presented in the attached photo. Why the author would avoid citing the source and elect to list his prior published works in the bibliography leads me to question his research.

This book is a great tool to study especially if you know Catholics in order to be able to weights to them as most Catholics do not even know what they believe and so they actually serve

I was amazed at the scholarship, that actual heresy started in Rome with the leadership in the first century...The apostle John's disciples are listed and quoted as having successfully rebuked the out of control church in Rome, making up their own doctrine contradictory to scripture until......excellent historical read for those coming out of Roman Catholicism or wanting to better understand the scriptural divide between Catholicism and Protestantism.

I agree with a previous reviewer - Poor Scholarship! It is not written in a scholarly manner; I expected more from a ThD. In his introduction Johnson lumps John Wesley in with the Reformers; that started my skepticism about the quality of his scholarship. Later, he asserted that Calvinists teach that God is the author of Sin. I am a Calvinist and do not believe that, as a matter of fact, the opposite is asserted by the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 3-1).Making such glaring errors in both history and theology I was caused to wonder is he dealing with his main subject matter in a similar way. Having these concerns I went on line to look for the Christian College of Texas, from where he received his ThD, and found nothing. Another uncomfortable item is half of his Bibliography consists of his own books.There are probably some items that are true; I am unable to trust what he has written and do not recommend this book

Extremely interesting and informative.

Ken appears to have tackled the information he researched in the 10 set volume of Ante-Nicene Fathers from a mind that was already made up about what the Catholic Church was and wasn't and will be in the end times. Therefore it comes across with a bias that it is obvious to anyone who seriously studies church history.I do not think that he understands the Catholic faith to the extent one needs to, to make such dogmatic statements.For example "Papal infallibility".Quoting Ken: “How could a bishop of Rome, a pope, be fooled into heresy. Apparently they are not as infallible as we have been led to believe.”This shows a lack of understanding of what "Papal infallibility" means. It's only ever happened twice. Too lengthy to go into the definition here, so google it – it’s easy. He does mention it, but then gets side-tracked.He speaks a lot about Idolatry in the Catholic Church from an outsider’s POV. Likening it to past demonic doctrines that infiltrated the church.He sees contemplative prayer = Biblical Sorcery = Gnosticism = staring at idols and chanting? I am not sure I follow his reasoning or if he is damning present day Pentecostalism too.To quote Ken: “Here Tertullian is quoted as saying the “ecstasy” is not being in one’s right mind. This is fundamental among the hyper-Pentecostal errors of the slain-in-the-spirit, false tongues, and false prophecies they practice in addition to perversion in other areas.”Being firstly a Charismatic Catholic and now a Pentecostal Baptist, his statement here has me wondering if he is so dogmatic that he is looking for devils and heresy in strange places, attributing the work of the Spirit as a work of the Devil. A very serious allegation to make.It makes me wonder about the rest of his research and what he has to say if he denies the move of the Spirit.His description of Montanus sounds more like the Toronto Blessing of the past years. So maybe he is speaking more of this. But he is unclear.He appears quick to jump on any opportunity to speak negatively of any Pope, eg Pius the XII.And to excuse Islam in an attempt to blacken the Church instead.Ken says quote: But Islam uses neither idols nor sorcery. So he denies that the Kaaba and the black false cornerstone of the Kaaba are idols, yet all statues in a Catholic Church are. He is more prepared to believe a Muslim’s negation than a Catholic’s. He is quick to reject Islam and Mecca as the harlot, in order to insert the Catholic Church.Quote from Ken: “It seems unlikely that a large religious group like the Roman Catholic Church would remain blood thirsty for centuries and suddenly change its ways…”Therefore it must have ulterior motives for hiding its true nature – being the Whore of Babylon.Ken also attempts, like many Muslims, to insert Mithras and the ancient ways into the Catholic Church; has St Anthony becoming a Gnostic and practicing “meditative sorcery”.I get it that transubstantiation would be up for debate. All I can say is that Satanic groups steal the host from the Catholics to desecrate. Nothing else.Having read “A Lion Handbook of the History of Christianity” for a number of hours afterward, it is obvious the church was in a mess for the first few centuries, but I am not sure that Ken’s book paints the real picture, or that he hasn’t made use of texts for his own purposes and agenda – that is to prove the Catholic Church is Gnostic, and anti-Christ and very much the Whore of Babylon in Revelation. If this is your bent, he will definitely tickle your itching ears.