If I tell you that a car requires a motor and the wheels, and then in one place I say that a motor is required and in another place I say that the wheels are required, then all these statements are true, and you cannot use the statement that a motor is required to build a car, to "prove" to me that wheels are not required.
Anyway, a couple more from your list.
John 6 is the discourse on the Eucharist. This is how it starts:
Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
Of these you chose verse 37, which is not even talking about either faith or works. It is a shorter version of a longer discourse in John 10 about the perseverance of saints. It sure refers to those who "come to Him" but says nothing about what "coming to Him" means. In some places of the Gospel people come to Jesus and He praises their faith; in others, He urges them to give what they have to the poor, i.e. urges them to do works of charity. That proves the article, and disproves your Protestant illusion of faith alone.
Your better prooftext would have been verse 40 (or 47), but again it only shows a desire for salvation of all who come. Toward the end of the conversation, many of those who came, left for good, so it is hard to argue that a one time conversion is enough for salvation. The discourse goes on to say "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day". From verse 50 to near the end of the chapter the discourse is about the necessity of receiving the Holy Eucharist, which is a form of works, this time it is liturgical work.
Let's skip John 10 because it also is about perseverance of saints, not on how to be one. The next one from your list, Romans 38-39 is can be read to prove security of salvation, but it says nothing about whether works play any part in it. Most directly is simply explain the power of divine love, which extends, let us remember, to saint and sinner alike.
This is why I asked you to substantiate your quotes: because I have gone down that list a bit and found them not proving faith alone. They are not even the best that are usually offered as prooftexts for "faith alone".
On the other hand, if you do not wish to debate that, then that is fine too.
Sorry, like I said earlier I do not wish to debate anyone. (And unfortunately that’s how my father was until he was on his deathbed and accepted Christ after being a life-long catholic). He had the attitude that he wanted to prove one wrong.
I gave you many verses that showed what it takes to be saved. The most glaring truth is in Ephesians 2 8-9).
The “Holy Eucharist” is a catholic invention after the death of the Apostles. To say that Peter is the founder of the catholic church is risible. Not only did he never go to Rome, he was a preacher/teacher of Jews, not Gentiles. If anyone should’ve been chosen, it should’ve been Paul. He went to Rome and brought the Gospel to the Gentiles.
The devil’s biggest deception is fooling people that they can get to heaven by adding or taking away from the gospel. Or as Paul said, “If anyone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed.”