ah, yes. the genetic fallacy. what difference does it make who wrote it? they either follow proper, time honored exegesis/hermeneutics or they don't. but you knew that already, didn't you?

quote:
I'll stick with Patristic sources

what did i say that defies the patristics?

quote:
James 2:24 where it says we're not saved by faith alone

you don't even understand what you are reading. james is quoting an aphorism as if to settle the matter of the self-sufficiency of a faith even if it fails to act. he is not at any point saying action is part of saving grace. the action is the outworking of the saving faith. Living faith cannot be disjoined from deeds but the faith is most certainly what "saves." Not the deeds themselves. An even cursory reading of the NT shows all authors to be in agreement with that, such as Paul in romans 10:9 or 10:14. Abraham proved his faith through deeds. If what you are saying is true, Abraham would have necessarily had to complete the sacrifice. Jesus talked about being born again or born from above. He told his disciples to preach the good news, not be activists. Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. He did NOT say they are saved by their fruitful action. John the Baptist said “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance." Notice that the repentance is already present.

James was addressing the question of alleged inactive faith. Faith necessarily leads to ministerial action. That is how faith is known. But the action is the outworking of the already present saving faith. For Paul the goal of saving faith was justification; for James the goal was usefulness - faith that instigates action. For James mere faith was an empty boast that masked great evil. Faith is trust in God alone, but it must be whole-hearted and produce good deeds based on the mercy of God.

It could be restated this way, if the command is to believe and be still, then inaction is called for. But that is not the command. It is believe and produce fruit. The fruit is merely the logical outworking of the saving belief. James was correcting the former, not denying the latter.

quote:
many Churches thought the Epistles of Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas were Scripture

first, this doesn't address the point i made. second, what you are saying is not exactly true. churches found expedience in these books. however, when the churches began to develop a homogeneous liturgy, these 2 books failed the tests of canonicity.

quote:
This begs the question of why did Protestants then decide to use the Masoratic texts instead.

it's not like they used the MT exclusively. the MT has important insights. and it's also not like they just quit looking to refine scripture because protestants were the ones who employed the ugaritic inscriptions that improved upon the textus receptus.

quote:
The Patristic writings were a huge factor leading me from Protestantism

then you totally, totally missed the point. as you have on several other matters.

quote:
Sorry but truth is truth. I wont stop sharing it.

you have been shown to be misled on a number of topics. are you incapable of agreeing that hurts the witness of the kingdom? something something false teachers....