Agree or disagree, St. John Chrysostom does what a good theologian should: he reads the text closely and makes his conclusions strictly on what the text said, and taking into consideration other scripture. His is an example of properly reading the Bible. What I often have from the Protestants is reading something very precisely stated and elaborated in context, and leaping to a conclusion they like. For example, they will find a passage that praises the scripture and declare that it proves sola Scriptura, or, like here, a passage that says that faith is necessary for salvation and conclude that it is also sufficient.
I respect your statement. And, if you allow for "Agree or disagree", then I would expect you to show the exact same respect for both Luther and Calvin.
What I often have from the Protestants is reading something very precisely stated and elaborated in context, and leaping to a conclusion they like.
That accusation works both ways. To us, "in context" means with other (inspired) scripture, but to Roman Catholics, it means with man-created (uninspired) Traditions.
For example, they will find a passage that praises the scripture and declare that it proves sola Scriptura, or, like here, a passage that says that faith is necessary for salvation and conclude that it is also sufficient.
Everything that you say here is a simple matter of age-old disputed interpretation. We "KNOW" that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are clearly taught in the scriptures, and one by-product is that God's power and sovereignty are increased in the human perception. Equally, you "KNOW" that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are fantasies invented by satan's unwitting accomplices, 500 years ago. That belief continues to maintain the idea of the high level of man's sovereignty and power. Therefore, the power and glory of man is increased in the human perception. There are clearly two different agendas.