This is the problem or one of them, in my view. First a set of choices is presented as though they were exhaustive. EITHER ALL the saved know they're saved, or NONE do. (Why shouldn't God let some know and others not know depending on His idea of how each individual might best proclaim the Gospel.)
Then it's presented that unless one has "assurance" one has no Gospel. Maybe some of us are too caught up with where we are right NOW with God that we just aren't worrying about assurance or not.
Then there is a tacit equivalence between "there is no no condemnation" and "they KNOW they are not condemned."
Any of the propositions might be true. But NONE of the arguments brought up to show their truth can do the job.
At least that's how it looks from here. I'd certainly consider an argument. I just don't think one has been offered.
Indeed we are dealing with a kind of ‘sound bite’ style here. I weary of reading long tomes myself, and so I try to be concise, but the volumes that have been written on topic certainly demonstrate that there is much more to be said, much more compellingly, and by better minds, certainly.
One issue addressed cannot serve to address all theological points. My thesis was that God has either made works a condition precedent to salvation, or Christ’s atonement is sufficient.
One response said that we would not know if our works were sufficient for salvation until after death. My response to that was that Paul’s words in Romans 8 would be without meaning.
Certainly I agree that there is always a concern about one’s standing and growth, and there are many exhortations in the Bible on that topic.