Yet you teach salvation can be lost. Which means it must be earned.
What causes the gift to lost (what ever work it is one must do or not do) is not the question. The mere fact that the work is required is what matters.
Do not say your not trying to earn salvation, when you teach salvation can be lost (must be earned)
From what I understand, that's not what he is saying (or trying to say). Rather, he is saying a true Christian will work. So he is making work a necessity of a true believer. So the work is not a requirement of salvation but is a necessity of a true Christian. I know its a subtle distinction but he is trying to say that it isn't a requirement to maintain or earn salvation but is a fruit of true conversion.
We, then, must argue that works are not a necessary result of conversion and are a
possibility rather than a necessity. So if someone doesn't walk in these works, they are by no means less saved. We could point to the thief on the cross to show this, that it was simple faith in Jesus that got him into paradise. We are saved unto good works, but the works, whether done or not done, do not save us even if they are a result of who we now are and God working in and through us His perfect will.
Someone who believes and dies the next moment for example, does not have the time to do these works. Does it make them any less saved? No, they have faith in Jesus so they are saved. So while the fruit of conversion leads to good works, the good works that may or may not be done have no say in salvation. Yes, they follow as a result of true conversion, but if the opportunity for good works
doesn't present itself due to imminent death we then have a clause. Good works
may follow true conversion. That is, if given the opportunity.
The fact that there is a clause that negates the necessity of works means that ultimately works do not maintain salvation. I am sure KennethC agrees, as he says works do not maintain salvation. The problem, however, is to make works a necessity of true conversion, ignoring that there is a clause that the works can only be done if given the opportunity.
My question would be, "What if the opportunity
does present itself to do good works, and then you do not do the work?" I am going to guess that KennethC would question the sincerity of that person's belief and whether they are truly converted. So it goes around in circles because its all about fruit inspection. The necessity for good works means you can determine if someone is a Christian by their conduct. The problem with this is that it doesn't consider that fruit takes time to bear, and so you have no place to judge others sincerity because maybe they haven't yet come to full fruition.
Do you see it? Its not that he is saying good works maintain salvation, or earns it. He is saying that a
true Christian
will have these things follow. I disagree, and think that
a true Christian could (possibly) have these things follow. The necessity for good works is not presented as something we have to do, but that we will do as born-again Christians. If that makes sense. He is trying to define what a true Christian will do as a result of belief. His mistake is in thinking it is a necessity to walk in the fruit of true conversion, and isn't acknowledging that there are clauses to consider, that would make it to where one does not walk in these good works (such as death, being bed ridden, or a death bed confession).
I am trying to clear the air, and clear up confusion from misunderstandings. I think the problem here, the disagreement, is on the necessity for good works, and also sanctification (as I titled this thread). We are quick to define KennethC a Legalist, but he is basically just being a fruit inspector (no offense to him). He is calling for the necessity of the fruit of conversion. We are saying that although it is a fruit (the good works), it is not a necessary fruit and has no say upon ones salvation ultimately.
Hope that helps...