A logical problem with the reformed or lordship position?

Ok, help me flesh this out, but it seems to make a lot of sense.

The Lordship position "claims" that they believe in a faith alone that saves in Jesus Christ BUT if you really believe, then you will persevere in good works and not fall away.

If that is true, why were most of the epistles written? They are quoted by Lordship proponents as proof that if you are not doing good works, you should question you were ever really saved and are not if you do not persevere, yet that begs the question. Shouldn't they point back to belief in Jesus Christ so that the works will follow, not just encourage you to do good works? After all, there are plenty of people who believe good works save.. that seems it would be confusing..

There seem to be only 3 options. 1, it is telling people that they better do good works TO be saved. 2. They are saying you are saved, so do good works and stop screwing around Rom 12:1-2.(which would be unnessecary in the reformed position) OR 3. they are saying that you are saved, but to keep yourself saved you must do good works. All 3 are not inline with the reformed position, and only one fits the "Good News" spelled out clearly in the Evangelistic Gospel. The reformed position is confusion. Claiming it is written to false professors, it is telling them to "persevere" "love God" and "do good works" for the purpose of ??? going to the lake of fire anyway? And IF they are about eternal life, the consequences are based on works & not faith which is just another hair in their ointment. It seems the Catholic or Armenian position is more consistent even if not any more biblical.

Are you following my line of thought? I was praying for a way to clearly show a reformed person that Grace is Grace! and this came into my mind to share. I appreciate feedback.