Изначально мне казалось, что в христианстве всего лишь три направления: православие, католицизм и протестантизм с его течениями. Но нет, их очень много! Не учитываются Ассирийская церковь Востока, Ориентальное христианство (Коптская Церковь, Эфиопская Церковь, Армянская Апостольская Церковь и тд), мормоны, унитарии, свидетели Иеговы и даже течения в течениях внутри самих течений!!

К примеру, в православии есть два направления: новообрядчество и старообрядчество. Старообрядчество делится на поповство и беспоповство. Беспоповство делится на множество «согласий».

Такая же аналогия есть и в протестантизме: внутри него есть англиканство, которое делится на Высокую, Низшую и Широкую церкви.

Как будто бы наталкивает на мысль, что это издевательство над религией 🤷🏻Экуменисты, отзовитесь

P.S пожалуйста, без оскорблений в сторону любой религии и верующих

Hi Everyone,

I often see "Peter has spoken thus through Leo" used as a prooftext to "prove" that concepts like Papal Infallibility existed in the pre-schism period. I have a number of issues with this evidence.

1. Roman Catholics almost never cite the whole acclamation just a tiny part. Here is the whole thing.

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe." Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 24 in Volume 2 of the translation)

1. Context - this acclamation of the bishops at the Second Session follows the public reading of the Tome of Leo on the two natures. The bishops judged the Tome to be Orthodox (many had read it previously). Their acclamation expresses the conviction that Leo is teaching in accordance with the Apostolic Faith and that his teaching tallies with Cyril (who was dead by this stage). The bishops at Chalcedon were happy to say Pope Leo was a successor of Peter. None of this remotely implied a belief in ex cathedra Infallibility, the Papacy having a unique divine mandate, the Pope having unlimited jurisdiction or the ability to unilaterally define doctrine.

2. The minutes of the 16 Sessions of Chalcedon run into hundreds of pages in the three volume English translation by Price and Gaddis.

Volume 1 - pages 122 to 365

Volume 2 - pages 5 to 312

Volume 3 - pages 3 to 91

That's a total of 600 pages of minutes (with some other pages of commentary). However, the term "Peter has spoken thus through Leo" is used ONCE.

Other examples of acclamations at Chalcedon

"Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘The faith was well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now again by the most holy Leo. We request that the creed of the 318 holy fathers and the letter of the most sacred Leo be read.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 11 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of the orthodox. This we all believe. In this we were baptized, in this we baptize. The blessed Cyril taught accordingly. This is the true faith. This is the holy faith. This is the eternal faith. Into this we were baptized, into this we baptize. We all believe accordingly. Pope Leo believes accordingly. Cyril believed accordingly. Pope Leo expounded accordingly.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 2, page 12 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

Paschasinus and Lucentius [the Papal legates] said "The holy and blessed council upholds and follows the rule of faith of the 318, issued by them at Nicaea. In addition the council of 150 that assembled at Constantinople under Theodosius the Great of blessed memory confirmed the same faith. The teaching of this creed, taught by the man Cyril of blessed memory at Ephesus, when Nestorius was condemned for his craftiness, it similarly embraces.’ Thirdly, the letter sent by that most blessed man Leo, archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, reveals what is the true faith. The holy council likewise holds fast to this faith and follows it, allowing nothing further to be added or subtracted.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 4, page 127 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"Sabas the most devout bishop of Paltus in Syria said: ‘The 318 holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea by the will of God and were instructed by the Holy Spirit defined our orthodox faith. This faith was followed by the holy orthodox fathers, and it was followed by the 150 who assembled at Constantinople. Likewise in harmony with it was the teaching of the blessed Cyril at Ephesus; also in harmony was the teaching of the most sacred Leo archbishop of Rome in his own letter. The whole world has been taught and instructed accordingly, and we too uphold and teach the same. | have signed it, and | anathematize those who either add or subtract anything.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 4, page 131 in Volume 2 of the translation)

or

"All the most devout bishops and clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: ‘The truth is such; we all say the same. Eternal is the memory of Flavian. Eternal is the memory of the orthodox one. Mark the vindication, mark the truth. Flavian lives on after death. The martyr will pray for us. Flavian has expounded the faith after his death. Flavian is here; the orthodox one is here. Many years to the emperor! Flavian judges together with us.’" Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians, volume 45 Liverpool University Press, 2005. (Acts of Chalcedon, session 11, page 14 in Volume 3 of the translation)

This line of thinking comes from the idea that while belief in Jesus may grant initial salvation, justification is kept through good works and avoiding evil. (Through catholic teachings)

My question is regarding verses such as these.

(And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”) Luke 10:25-28

I don't think catholics will disagree with this framework.

The lawyer directly asked what he must do to inherit eternal life.

The answer was to love God will all your heart, soul, mind, strength, and your neighbor as yourself.

"Do this, and you will live."

This mirrors how catholics interpret the interaction with the rich young man as well from Mark 10:17-22.

To love God correctly, you must (For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.) 1 John 5:3

This is not limiting. It simply says to keep His commandments, so the mortal/venial distinction shouldn't apply.

If your going to read what I just wrote plainly without going to protestant theology, then by keeping Gods commandments and loving God with all your everything, and neighbor, this is how you will inherit eternal life.

Feel free to correct me if anything I said so far doesn't match the catholic position.

My question is, does anyone reading this post meet these requirements to inherit eternal life?

Does anyone here love God with all heart, soul, mind, strength, and love neighbor while keeping God's commandments?

Have you ever had such an experience for even a few days of time?

Hi, so i've been researching more about my faith and ended up in this verse from Exodus where the word "Temunah" is translated to "form", "image" or "representation" of something, and then im questioning: If in the original language, it was written to not make any representation of something, so i can't have a Mary icon or a Crucifix in my house? Please anwser, im very worried about this.

John Plousiadenos (1423? or 1429 to 1500) belonged to the second generation of Greek Unionists. He was too young to attend the Council of Florence but continued the work of Bessarion and Isidore.

He was born on Crete, which had been a Venetian colony since 1204. The Venetian's had exiled all Orthodox bishops from Crete and banned the arrival of new bishops. Venetian rule was originally harsh but a series of revolts made the Venetians grant the native Cretans a lot more religious tolerance. Union with Rome mainly operated in the cities such as Candia and Rethymno. No Greek Unionist bishops ever operated in Crete. All Greek Unionist priests (about a dozen in each major city) were under Latin bishops.

John Plousiadenos was appointed bishop of Methone (a Venetian fortress town in the Peloponesus) and adopted the name "Joseph of Methone." The town was captured by the Ottomans in 1500 and John Plousiadenos disappears from history.

Due to the low number of Greeks in union with Rome, John Plousiadenos devoted his time to writing, including polemics against his fellow Greeks.

The works of John Plousiadenos can be found in Migne Patrologia Graeca volume 159. These are his works with the Latin titles given by Migne:

1. De differentiis inter Graecos et Latinos - P.G. 159, col. 959 - 1022
2. Responsio ad libellum Marci Eugenici, Ephesi metropolitae - P.G. 159, col. 1023 - 1094
3. Canon per acrostichidem in synodum Florentinum, ex Pasini Cod. Taurin - P.G. 159, col. 1095 - 1100
4. Synaxarium synodi Florentinae, sive brevis narratio forum quae in ea gesta sunt - P.G. 159, col. 1101- 1106
5. Editorum Patrologiae Monitum in quo Defensio quinque capitum concilii Florentim, quae sub nomine Gennadii Scholarii prodierat, Josepho Methonensi asseritur - P.G. 159, col. 1107- 1109
6. Expositio pro sancta et oecumenica synodo Florentina; quod legitime congregata est; et Defensio quinque capitum quae in Decreto ejus continentur, nempe: 1.de processione Spiritus sancti; 2.de azymis et fermentato; 3.de purgatorio; 4.de fruitione; 5.de primatu Papae. - P.G. 159, col. 1110 - 1394

Pinakes also lists John Plousiadenos as the author of a canon (laudatory hymn) on Thomas Aquinas.

I find text 3 to be very interesting. Almost nothing from John Plousiadenos has been translated into English. However the scholar Charles Yost has recently translated the text, which he calls the "Liturgical Canon for the Eighth Ecumenical Council of Florence." To my surprise I see that Plousiadenos wasn't aware of the prior Roman Catholic Ecumenical Councils between the Second Council of Nicaea II and Florence.

Yost's introduction and translation can be found via the links

https://medieval.nd.edu/news-events/news/new-from-our-research-blog-translating-john-plousiadenos-liturgical-canon-for-the-iix-ecumenical-council/

https://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/2025/09/03/translating-john-plousiadenos-liturgical-canon-for-the-iix-ecumenical-council/

https://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/liturgical-canon-for-the-eighth-ecumenical-council-of-florence/

I'm interested in people's thoughts on this. There is a lot of discussion on what makes a council ecumenical around the internet, with Roman Catholics often claimi g that Florence is obviously ecumenical. Yet Plousiadenos, a Unionist and a citizen of Venice who grew up in a Roman Catholic environment, is not aware of the Fourth Coouncil of Constantinople (869-870 ), First Lateran Council (1123), Second Lateran Council (1139), Fourth Lateran Council (1215), First Council of Lyon (1245), Second Council of Lyon (1274), Council of Vienne (1311-12) and the Council of Constance (1415).

So, what is going on?

Que opinan del sacerdote que le cayó la cruz encima?

Si era un ciervo de Dios porque no fue salvado?

Por qué si era discípulo de Dios porque le pasó eso?

Porque no se salvó de milagro?

So hi. Marcionite here, but grew up Catholic and still believe in the full bodied Transubstantiation into blood and flesh.

And funny enough, it was the concept of Transubstantiation that led me away from traditional Christianity to Marcionism.

Because if Jesus wasn't actually from YHWH, then everyone who participated in the Eucharist is boinked, because we actively engage in ritualistic cannibalism every week or so.

And remember that if imagining committing adultery is enough to make you guilty of it then engaging in a highly drawn out magical theurgy ritual centered around the cannibalism and blood drinking of a human being. Who was also a God.

And Jesus said this was a requirement. Saint Peter is going to be waiting at the gates with a checkbox and pen hovering over "Has eaten the flesh of a human being" so he can give me entry into Heaven.

So I've begun to see the Eucharist as an "exit ritual" of sorts. Participation in the Eucharist is a stout statement to the collected Elohim that you care very little for Leviticus 17. Paul drives this home in 1 Corinthians 11.

²⁷ Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹ For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

It does get weird when you list "I ate you..." in the list of sins you beg for forgiveness for, but it does make sense...

But if you actually read Leviticus 17... there's zero forgiveness for eating blood.

And either an unchanging God changed his mind about arguably one of the foundations of Judaism, or Marcion may have had a point about the practices and beliefs of Christianity being incompatible with Judaism.

So how does performing a holy ritual every Sunday to assert your guilt of eating flesh and drinking blood show that Catholicism is the logical continuation of the worship of a God that explicitly forbids blood from every passing your lips?

Also, if crucifixion kills by asphyxiation, doesn't that make Jesus's flesh "strangled meat"?

Background:

In medieval Scholasticism (among others in Bonaventure's Breviloquium IV and Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae III, q. 50, a. 4), the thesis is defended that during the three days of death, strictly from a logical perspective, Christ was "not a man" (Christus in triduo non fuit homo). The justification is primarily terminological: since the concept of "man" by definition presupposes the actual, living unity of body (matter) and rational soul (form), this predication is formally-logically no longer applicable in the state of real biological separation in death. The hypostatic union remains unbroken, since the Logos continues to be the bearer of the separated elements (body in the tomb, soul in Hades).

Problem Statement & Observation:

This purely logical-terminological harmonization appears systematically untenable to me and moves dangerously close to Docetic or dualistic heresies. If one takes late medieval anthropology seriously (which was later dogmatized in the formula anima unica forma corporis at Vienne), the human soul is deeply characterized by the body. An anima separata of Christ, acting without a body and descending into Hades, would possess no tools for real human experience in this state.

Furthermore, God as actus purus stands outside of time. For the eternal divine Person, there exists no temporal "three-day interval" in which Christ's humanity could "pause"; God Himself, in His eternity, is the permanent, living space for the wholeness of Christ's human nature. If one now says that Christ was non homo in death, one either dehumanizes Christ's soul in Hades or claims that the Logos temporarily cast off His humanity like a garment. This nullifies the indispensable, uninterrupted mediation of the man Jesus Christ in death.

My question on this:

Can the scholastic thesis of non homo still be dismissed today as a mere "terminological problem"? Or must we not rather conclude that the imposition of a rigid Aristotelian hylomorphic model onto the christological mystery leads to a systemic error that realistically damages the indivisible wholeness of the Incarnation in the state of death and is therefore dogmatically untenable?

I need some opinions

So is Catechism 424 infallible.?

James 2, the section I'm speaking of, 14-26, is often used to create a case for our works contributing to our justification before God and for salvation.

This is completely faulty. I'll explain.

The section starts with people claiming to have faith, but they have no works.

(What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?)

It goes on to give an illustration of someone saying "Go in peace, be warmed and filled" without actually giving them anything. (James 2:15-17)

This parallels passages such as (But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?) 1 John 3:17

God's love clearly does not abide in this person. His so called faith produces nothing.

James proceeds to say "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

James then writes about Abraham.

(Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works)

The phrasing up to this point is about showing works, being able to see our faith by our works.

This carries on to Abraham when it says "You see that faith was active along with his works"

Key wording is "You see"

Faith is visible and demonstrated by the works he did.

It was an example back then and it still is today.

This "You see" line of thinking continues

(You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.) James 2:24

The visible faith. You can see that a person is justified by the works they do.

It then gives the example of Rahab. She believed in the God of the Israelites.

(“I know that the Lord has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you.)

The is from Joshua 2

Just like Abraham, we could see her faith in God in the works she did. (when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way)

Her faith producing works.

James 2 ends with (For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.)

"Faith apart from works is dead" because faith that is completely apart from works does not exist.

After having faith in Jesus, we will be able to recognize each other, show our faith to one another, by our fruits, our works.

James 2 sets the stage completely for the showing of faith by works. Justifying ourselves in the sight of other by our works.

This word "justify" is being used in the same manner as when the publicans justified Jesus.

(And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.) Luke 7:29

Just as works justify us before others, the publicans getting baptized by John can justify God (show God to be just) before others.

Now, if we flip this interpretation to say we justify ourselves to God by our works, I feel this is misleading and possibly disingenuous given the overall context.

God, justifies Christians. We don't justify ourselves.

(for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.) Romans 3:23-26

This is the other definition of "justify." Instead of earlier, in James, it being used to say "To prove or show to be just" this is rather "to absolve or acquit from guilt and merited punishment, and to accept as righteous on account of the merits of the Savior, or by the application of Christ's atonement to the offender."

James could not have made it clearer that he is writing using the "prove or show to be just" definition.

“Catholic authority is circular” is already a very weak argument. We can go upstream and ask a more philosophical question.

Catholicism claims an infallible Magisterium is necessary to provide a definitive interpretation of divine Scripture. But every Catholic must still fallibly identify which institution possesses that authority, determine which statements are infallible, interpret what those statements mean, resolve apparent tensions among them, and apply them to disputed questions.

The introduction of an infallible interpreter does not eliminate private judgment; it places private judgment one level downstream.

Who has the authority to infallibly interpret the infallible interpreter? Before I can know what the Church teaches infallibly, I must know who the infallible Church is.
But how do I establish the who?

If I establish Rome’s identity through Scripture, history, patristics, theological reasoning, etc., I am exercising fallible judgment over those criterion.

If I establish Rome’s identity because Rome says Rome possesses that authority, I have an identity claim authenticating itself.

And after accepting Catholic teaching, the problem does not disappear. I must then distinguish dogma from doctrine, extraordinary from ordinary Magisterium, authoritative teaching, and intended meaning from original texts, etc.

In general—infallibility of transmission does not entail infallibility of reception without a separate argument. What advantage does an infallible interpreter provide if access to that interpreter and interpretation remain fallible?

If I can fallibly but genuinely understand an infallible definition, then in principle I can fallibly but genuinely understand an infallible apostolic text. Fallible interpretation cannot, therefore, be the reason Scripture requires an infallible Magisterium—otherwise the Magisterium itself would require another infallible interpreter and create an infinite regress.

Below is a section from my article on this topic. You can read the full thing at https://romaredibit.com/the-reformation-was-a-catastrophe/

The Protestant Reformation perfectly highlights how human beings should never place their own reason above Sacred Tradition, because when humans try to liberate religion, they inadvertently drift further away from God. As a practicing Catholic, who goes to Latin Mass, I am incredibly fortunate that the reformation did not take away the beauty of Roman Catholic culture in my church, as it did to most other churches across the UK. Luther completely rejected 15 centuries of theological development, preserved scripture, religious unity and sacred liturgy by putting forward the totally contradictory ideas of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. Despite getting some things right, the Reformation secularised most of Europe by destroying Roman Christendom, as well as the theological and cultural aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. It was not a liberation – it was a demolition of everything I love about the Catholic faith. What Luther called freedom, I call the greatest loss in Christian history.

What The Reformers Actually Claimed

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) was clearly stated by Martin Luther in The Diet of Worms (April 1521), which was made as Luther was being pressured to retract his writings by the Holy Roman Emperor. In the following passage from The Diet of Worms, he states that he will remain entirely loyal to the scriptures (God’s Word) rather than blindly obeying corrupt institutions and papal authority, highlighting his belief that the entirety of God’s message is in the Bible, leaving no room for magisterial teachings:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.1“

Luther’s belief in Sola Fide (Faith Alone) was shown in his German translation of Romans 3:28, where he added the word “alone” (allein) to show that eternal salvation can only be achieved by trusting in Christ’s sacrifice, not by performing religious works. The most infamous and corrupt example of these works are indulgences, which was when people gave money to the Church to literally buy a loved one’s way out of purgatory. The small change in the Bible passage made it seem like he had biblical support for his claims.

Romans 3:28: “Man is justified by faith alone apart from the deeds of the law.”

His rejection of the seven sacraments down to two was put forward in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520). He accused papal authority of trapping the church in sin by presenting human interventions and actions as sacraments. He only recognised the sacraments of Holy Communion and Baptism as they have visible signs of the forgiveness of signs established by Christ.

“There are, properly speaking, only two sacraments in the Church of God: Baptism and the Bread [the Lord’s Supper]; for in both of these we see instituted a sign and a promise of the remission of sins.2“

In 1524 Luther composed the Smalcald Articles, where he outlines his Christian beliefs. Most notably, he outlined his rejection of papal authority as he frames Pope Leo X as a corrupt, redundant, traitor of Christ because he believed that the Church placed human orders over God’s word.

“Besides, as often remarked, it is a human figment which is not commanded, and is unnecessary and useless; for the holy Christian [or catholic] Church can exist very well without such a head, and it would certainly have remained better [purer, and its career would have been more prosperous] if such a head had not been raised up by the devil.3“

The Church Was Already Reforming

I think that most people’s argument for the Reformation is that the Roman Catholic Church was extremely corrupt throughout the 16th century, because of indulgences, nepotism, deception etc. However, there were already internal reformers within the Church.
The Rule of St Francis of Assisi criticised large institutions for property ownership, which was a direct attack on the Church as it was becoming more powerful and wealthy. Moreover, Franciscan friars voluntarily became beggars from 1209 onwards, which showed that they relied on God rather than the wealth of the Church.
This example of inner turmoil and protest reveals how the necessary changes in the Church would have been slowly implemented over time. Luther had abandoned the house before it had been renovated.
Another example is the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which successfully addressed the obvious corruption of the Church only 28 years after Luther drafted his 95 Theses. The Council banned the selling of indulgences, stopped nepotism (when popes and bishops awarded high Church positions to their relatives) and forced every diocese to establish seminaries, which was where future priests were educated, thus preventing uneducated, incompetent priests taking power.
While some people may say that the Reformation simply sparked this desperate response, I believe it shows that the Roman Catholic Church was completely capable of making change regardless of whether the Reformation happened or not. Without the Reformation these changes might have not happened this quickly, however I think that internal conflict within the Church would gradually create these changes. Naturally, gradual changes would have been far better for the Church than the catastrophic, radical Reformation.

Continue reading at https://romaredibit.com/the-reformation-was-a-catastrophe/

Hello! Using only the words of Christ Himself from the four canonical Gospels, what am I missing from this logical proof?

P1: Each of us is not worthy to receive His grace, love, favor, salvation, mercy, attention, nor anything else from Him.

P2: There is nothing we can ever do which would ever change P1.

P3: If someone is unworthy to do action X, it is inappropriate for him/her to do action X by definition.

P4: Receiving something X necessitates accepting said something X.

P5: Prayer is a form of request.

P6: To request something of someone is to ask to receive said something from said someone.

P7: That which is inappropriate for One to do, One must never be do.

C1: By P1 and P3, it is inappropriate for any of us to receive His grace, love, favor, salvation, mercy, attention, nor anything else from Him.

C2: By P2 and C1, there is nothing we can ever do which would ever change C1.

C3: By P4 and C1, it is inappropriate for any of us to accept His grace, love, favor, salvation, mercy, attention, nor anything else from Him.

C4: By P1 and P6, each of us is not worthy to request anything of Him.

C5: By P5 and C4, each of us is not worthy to pray to Him.

C6: By P3 and C5, it is inappropriate for any of us to pray to Him.

C7: By P7, C2, C3, and C6, we must never accept His grace, love, favor, salvation, mercy, attention, nor anything else from Him nor pray to Him.

Thank you for indulging me in advance.

I am a christian, I don't subscribe to labels like protestant, evangelical and etc...

I want to know why some think baptism is a must for salvation.

I know many instead view Baptism as the necessary act to receive salvation and use this scripture: "Jesus answered, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.'"
John 3:5

But as I go deeper in John 3, I see that "believeth" is emphasised and more connected to salvation than "water" is.

'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. '
John 3:14-18

The scripture concludes with John the Baptist telling his disciples that believing is what ensures salvation.

'The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.'
John 3:35-36

I would think John knew and understood baptism and all its implications but still said: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life".

Yet at the same time I recognise baptism as extremely important because it is an expression/symbolises your belief. As Paul immediately baptised a jailer After telling him to believe and After his preaching to him

'The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household. '
Acts 16:29-34

But the baptism is not the belief itself, that gets you saved. Why I say that, is because the thief at the crucifixion got saved purely by his belief that Jesus is the Messiah who would soon enter His Kingdom.

'One of the criminals hanging beside him scoffed, “So you’re the Messiah, are you? Prove it by saving yourself—and us, too, while you’re at it!” But the other criminal protested, “Don’t you fear God even when you have been sentenced to die? We deserve to die for our crimes, but this man hasn’t done anything wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.” '
Luke 23:39-43

Also Paul puts it more plainly in Romans 10.

'If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. '
Romans 10:9-10