We are 'not' saved by Grace, oh really.

Throughout Douglas' book, Doug’s whole premise is that we are 'not saved by Grace’, and that this doctrine was ‘originated by Paul’. But if Doug's hypothesis is 'not' true, then all of Doug’s doctrine and the details involved are also suspicious, not trustworthy, and at odds with God Himself.

If Jesus, the apostles and the Old Testament all teach that we are all sinners, then we cannot all be innocent, and therefore; we are all guilty before God. It is hard to proceed at all if this is not understood. The consequences of our guilt must be considered before any approach to God, or His Word, can be made. Isaiah 53:6 states;
"All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him"
Behold, the Lord's hand is not so short That it cannot save; Nor is His ear so dull That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear" (Isaiah 59:1-2)

This is why I have ‘first’ addressed Doug’s claim that; repentance is not a part of Paul’s teaching, and therefore not a part of Christianity. But if all Christianity has 'always' held to the doctrine of repentance before salvation (albeit the church soon changed the 'meaning' of repentance to penance, never the less the concept has always been there), and the Church has 'always' held Paul's letters as doctrine then 'where' is the problem?
Ans. There is no-problem. Douglas is fabricating a problem.

The Church has kept and used Paul for 2000 years, held his letters as authoritative, and have not found them at odds with the rest of scripture, church teachings or the scriptural concept of Grace. Yet Doug’s claim that they are at odds, is rather odd, since very few, if any have ever see it that way. Grace also has been foundational in the Church since the beginning (albeit Catholicism soon interpreted grace as coming 'through' the Catholic Church, its sacraments and its priesthood, rather than directly from the Cross). It seems to me that the destination of Douglas' doctrine is similar to Judaism, or similar even to salvation by penance, an ongoing work, or at least a works salvation. It is hard to nail down Douglas' final salvation plan because as I will show Douglas argues against his own doctrine at times, demanding sometimes that we must continue to believe - and on the other hand continue to keep the Law - which is it, both?
(The biblical promises that ‘Gods Word will endure’, and that ‘His Church will endure’ are not proofs for my argument, but these scriptural verse’s do need to be considered) Doug is not the world’s best Greek and theology scholar, so I would be a little slow to accept his research. Of all the thousands if not millions of theologians and language scholars that have gone before him, very few come up with or would agree with his discoveries, this is not proof, but ‘it is’ a consideration. At times some have criticized and questioned the canon (Tertullian, Luther) but the Church ‘has’ used all of scripture including the Gospels, Acts, Peter etc., and Paul's letters since the beginning, and without doubt the basic canon has remained basically the same for 2000 years. (I will address the canon in detail later but my point here is; the ‘church’ has not found Paul’s writings (or Luke etc.) out of harmony with the rest of scripture. And again the same thing goes for repentance, this has always been the Churches motto, ‘Repent and believe the good news’ (Mark 1:15) How can Doug claim it was not taught?