Catholics, OTOH spend too much time emphasizing the works believing that if they do all sorts of things this buys something. It should be noted that Abraham was saved by his faith 17 years prior to being saved by his works. Queen Esther was called, as far as we know, for one particular task and that was to save the Jews on one specific day. Isaiah was called to harden the people's heart so that no one would come to God. (How would you like that ministry-one that you would never see any fruit.) Works is a manifestation of the grace we have received and it can come in many forms. The Catholics, IMO, have this exactly backwards by saying we receive grace by our works.
I don't think "sola scriptura" is ONLY Luther's doctrine. I've read a number (not all) of early church writings and time and again they point to scripture as verification of their ideas, rarely to other contemporary theologian. There is some to be sure but not much. Many of the early church fathers based their theology directly upon scripture verses.
Sola scriptura is simply a beachmark by which sound theology should be measured. It isn't doing away with the church writings of which Luther and Calvin rely heavily on. It is merely stating that one should not willy-nilly accept what is being taught and go back to the scripture to see if these things are accurate. Had many of the cardinals and the Pope followed this advice the Reformation probably would never have happened.
Protestantism makes a distinction between man's spiritual depravity and his natural depravity. Both are dead to sin. God resurrects the spirit to a newness of life and cause us to walk in His statutes and obey His ordiences. This was His divine promise. However the body is still corruptable and we wait for the glorification of the body.
Luther quotes Hebrews
No one prior to Luther attempted to reduce the Christian Canon, once it was settled in Carthage in early 5 c. The fact that the deuterocanon was not formally recognized until Trent is equally true for any other book, Genesis to Apocalypse. Show me a Christian Bible prior to Trent that did not contain the Deuterocanon, or stop insinuating anything was added by Trent. The lies and half-truths spread by Protestants about the history of the Church are in themselves enough to condemn their entire enterprise to Hell, and you have been corrected enough times to know better.
The Church does not teach that "we receive grace by works". We teach what the scripture say, that we are judged by our works and that we are commanded to do works of charity. We don't disagree that the works are outcome of faith and are enabled by grace.
Likewise, the Church does not teach anything contrary to the fact that "scripture [is a] verification of their ideas". That is not the error of Luther's. I told you very specifically what is: the notion that the subset of the scripture that he likes is sufficient and can be understood outside of the entire Tradition, written and unwritten.
Regarding grace, I explained what is the error: that grace does not regenerate constantly and often gradually in one's lifetime. When pressed to the corner, Protestants usually find a formilation that is vague enough to dance away from Luther's dungheap. That is good that they feel compelled to obfuscate; but the dungheap theory of man is still an error.