The two justifications

[Eleanor]

Agreed. I never meant to suggest a solution to the seemingly contradictory statements by Paul and James would be the basis to not have James as part of the canon.
Sample of The statements that seem contradictory
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Paul - “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4–5).
I think I hear what you're saying.
Definition of Wisdom Literature (leastwise, the one I've read - Wisdom - This genre’s texts, like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and James, contain short sayings of generalized approaches to life, story in generality. They often are not designed to be understood as true in every particular moment.

James is wisdom literature???

That's a big much.

... seems very convenient definition to make if you need an excuse to not understand something the way it is literally read.
There's a lot of Hermeneutic rules out there. They sort of make some sense, but they are man-made and thus suspect to some degree. I personally like the Hermeneutic rule that the dispensationalists stress of literal interpretation, When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.
Agreed. Yet, confirmation bias can lead one astray.
Just as I cannot prove a point using my Greek skills, so too my knowledge of how people derived hermeneutical rules has no foundation.
NOTE: I agree with your doctrinal conclusions. I just question to a small degree man-made hermeneutical rules.
I prefer the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid giggle )

 

[fastfredy0]

In Reformed theology it means literal according to the type of genre it is, and taking all the other hermeneutic rules into consideration along with it.
learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ultimately-with-rc-sproul/how-to-interpret-the-bible-literally

I think hermeneutic rules are worth considering but not infallible.

 

[fastfredy0]

James is wisdom literature???

That's a big much.

Maybe. @Arial said James was "wisdom literature" and my source agreed with her. Perhaps you can source your opinion and confront @Arial with you divergent opinion. I'm not well versed on the subject.

 

[Arial]

I think hermeneutic rules are worth considering but not infallible.

Of course they are not infallible, but they are also necessary. And we are using the laws of hermeneutics all the time in everything we read and hear and say. It is just that a great many people treat the Bible as though those rules do not apply. As though it were some mystical book. We never read a novel about time travel as though we were reading a historical account of actual events. We never read poetry as though we were reading a textbook on geology. We never read the ten commandments as though we were reading poetry, and we don't read Bible poetry as though we are reading law. We don't read apocalyptic poetry that uses symbols and representatives, literalisticly (not the same thing as literal). We don't read and interpret wisdom literature as though we were reading commandments or doctrine.

 

[makesends]

It may be of interest that non-dispensationalist (at least in the Reformed camp) also have the hermeneutic rule of interpreting according to the plain sense of the words and interpret literally. The difference falls into the definition of literal. Literal in dispensationalism has come to mean what you stated above. Though I am not sure that was the intent, it certainly is in practice.

I agree. In fact, it is, in part, this, that drew me to what I found Reformed thinking to be like; they are eminently practical while giving priority to respect for Scriptures as the Word of God. They do not treat Scriptures as though they are some separate holy text to be deciphered and dealt with at a distance, figured out and used for conjuring or otherwise approached at the will and purpose of the user.

"These are not just words for you—they are your life!" is what Moses told the Israelites concerning The Law; how much more, then, the whole of Scriptures, and the New Testament!

Eisegesis is a superstitious use of Scriptures, as though it is not meant to be read as a book, but rather a series of texts to be understood according to the will and presumptions of the user.