Every book has to give the plan of salvation, has to be self-contained? Where did this principle come from?
No, salvation plan is just an indicator. It makes me go "Hmmmm". I do not argue the point strongly. And "self-contained" has nothing to do with it (as far as I can tell).
It sounds to me like you have a pre-conceived notion of exactly what Scripture should tell you, and that you reject that which doesn't fit your notion. Perhaps James is there for a reason after all.
I do have a notion of generally what Scripture should tell me, pre-concieved with respect to the book of James, since I take the 24 besides James, Hebrews, Jude as my basis for figuring what Scirpture should generally tell me. In other words, James does not quite appear completely of a piece with the rest of what is clearly and definitively Scripture. It is certainly not a pre-conceived notion with respect to the 24, however, since the 24 is the basis for the notion in the first place. And, incidenally, Hebrews and Jude pass with flying colors. They are without any doubt of the same warp and weave, the same "stuff" as the others.
You did say:
It is unlikely that the book of James alone could give a man a proper understanding of Redemption, which is criticle for salvation.
This seemed, to me, to be arguing that a book must, alone, be capable of giving "a proper understanding of Redemption." This seems to be your main basis for rejecting it.
I do have a notion of generally what Scripture should tell me, pre-concieved with respect to the book of James, since I take the 24 besides James, Hebrews, Jude as my basis for figuring what Scirpture should generally tell me.
So you have this idea of what "a proper understanding of Redemption" is, based on 24 books. Rather than make that "understanding" jibe with the remaining canon, you reject the canon and hold onto your "understanding" as the rule.
SD