Catholicism claims a person becomes a Christian when he is "baptized" (infant sprinkling, which, by defininition, isn't scriptural baptism). This “baptism” is usually being performed on infant children. Bible believing churches believe the Bible by properly baptizing, by immersion, only those who are old enough to have made a profession of faith in trusting only in Jesus as their Personal Saviour and not salvation by personal “good” works, the priest, a denomination, or the church. It is because of Ana-Baptists (rebaptizers) that countless thousands and perhaps millions of believers were butchered by Rome during the Dark Ages.

The next serious error to begin creeping in, and which seems from some historians (not all) to have begun in this same century (2nd) and which may be said to have been an inevitable consequence of the “baptismal regeneration” idea, was a change in the subjects of baptism. Since baptism has been declared to be an agency or means to salvation by some erring churches, then the sooner baptism takes place the better. Hence arose “infant baptism.” Prior to this “believers” and “believers” only, were regarded as proper subjects for baptism. “Sprinkling” and “pouring” are not now referred to. These came in much later. For several centuries, infants, like others, were immersed. The Greek Catholics (a very large branch of the Catholic church) up to this day, have never changed the original form of baptism. They practice infant baptism but have never done otherwise than immerse the children. (Note: Some of the church historians put the beginning of infant baptism within this century, but I shall quote a short paragraph from “Robinson's Ecclesiastical Researches.”) “During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370.” (Shackelford's Compendium of Baptist History, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p. 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)

May we reflect a minute as to the “fruit” of a Catholic “conversion” and a Baptist conversion. Catholic sprinkling is usually done involuntarily, with the baby (in most cases) being sprinkled at the wishes of his parents (this is also true in the Lutheran Church, of which I attended and was confirmed before learning the truth). As documented in every instance in the Bible, Baptist baptism by immersion comes after a person professes faith in Christ by his own free will; and the difference in lives of the two baptisms (one false baptism and one scriptural) is staggering. It is not the baptism that makes the difference, it is the Holy Spirit inside the believer that makes the difference, which the Catholic baby does not receive at his sprinkling.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference in the personal lives of those who have been scripturally born again and the pseudo-Christians in liberal denominations and cults. Only the New Birth, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, can totally transform a wrecked life, or keep a child from ruining his life by proper guidance and scriptural obedience.

Another horrible way Rome has extended her influence of her "Gospel" is through the philosophy of “Liberation Theology.” Any serious student of Catholicism knows that the Catholic Gospel is not the same as the Gospel found in the Bible. The Catholic Gospel is “Social Justice,” which simply boils down to Communism, Marxism, and Socialism. To prove my point, use your favorite search engine and use the phrase "Liberation Theology," and you will be convinced that the "Gospel" of Rome is world domination by any means; even killing in the name of God.

The liberation-theology movement was partly inspired by the Second Vatican Council and the 1967 papal encyclical Populorum [P]rogressio. Its leading exponents include Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff of Brazil, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay. The liberationists have received encouragement from the Latin American bishops, especially in resolutions adopted at a 1968 conference in Medellin, Colombia; others in the Roman Catholic church have objected to their use of Marxist ideas, their support for revolutionary movements, and their criticisms of traditional church institutions. Two members of Nicaragua’s Sandinista leadership belonged to the Roman Catholic clergy, a Maryknoll and a Jesuit. Vatican authorities censured Boff in 1985 but in a 1986 document supported a moderate form of liberation theology.

Not to belabor this issue too much, I also have in my library a book I bought at a garage sale in Chicago, entitled Rules for Radicals, with the subtitle: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, by Saul D. Alinsky. This book has a rubber stamp mark on the inside cover indicating that the person who purchased this book bought it from the DePaul University book store, a Jesuit college in Chicago! Naturally, Rome tries to act like she is distancing herself from Communism and Marxism, when in reality, she promotes it–all in the name of religion and "social justice."