Looking within only brings doubt and not assurance

 So I sent a youtube video over to one of the elders at Paradox of Macarthur telling a woman who doubted of her salvation because she doesn't know if she has basically done enough. Macarthur of course puts her back into introspection.

This elder defends Macarthurs way of doing it through out and yet has the audacity to claim he is against Lordship Salvation. Of course, when you confuse law and gospel and you are for Van Tillian logic you will say irrational things.

First, he asked me about Macarthur's distinction between security and assurance. My response to him was that the Bible treats these as the same thing. The elect have a sure foundation by Christ. The elect because of the work of Christ alone are assured of salvation.
Macarthur in the video said to the woman that one of the surest signs that she was saved was that she desired to be saved. Yet the Bible no where says this is where assurance lies. Esau also desired the promises of God but found no place of repentance from his father even though Esau sought it with tears.

So the elder asked me what would my answer be to this woman?

Either she believes in Christ alone for assurance or she is not. That should have ben clear from what I said. Macarthur doesn't. 

Its interesting how these guys want to add something that we do to the mix of salvation.

Again this elder tells me that she is looking for assurance but her security is unwavering in Christ.

My question is do we know this? No. Macarthur is pushing this woman to look inside. Typical Lordship salvation guys do this. They want to look for 'evidences' of ones salvation in what the Spirit does inside them. The elder assumes that she desires the lord and it is good but does she desire it from knowledge? You could also interchange desire with having a zeal. The Jews sought the righteousness of God but didn't attain it because they sought it not rightly through Christ Jesus alone.

The elder wants more room for Progressive Sanctification. 

I understand what he is trying to do. He wants to send this woman away from the true Christ of Scripture, which wouldn't be optimal. The Bible never grounds our salvation in anything else other than what Christ accomplished on the cross. Either one is saved by the power of what Christ got done or they are not. Either a man looks to Christ or they do not. Can't change a leopard.

Jesus is referred to as the Hope of the elects salvation in Scripture. The elect are said to believe upon him, to believe upon his word.

Secondly, the question was raised about whether I doubt. I am sure this elder doubts everyday for its a natural inclination for those whose eyes are taken off Christ.

His question was do I ever doubt the sincerity of my Faith? My answer is No. I don't because my Faith is not in my Faith. If it was then yes I would doubt.

Then the next question was whether I had any besetting sins that make me question my Faith. Have I ever experience any season of doubt? Like maybe I am not actually saved?

To which I responded in the negative. For I know who I have believed in and believe that he is able to keep me til that day.

Now keep in mind my response isn't that I never am tempted to look away from Christ and that I never do sin. My response is of a different nature. My response is with regards to my own work which is not perfect to that of what Christ achieved on the Cross and how his work is perfect and mine is not.

The elder then back peddles and says that he is not arguing that assurance is within ourselves - which he basically did at the beginning when he said "she is looking for evidence to that effect. The evidence is the Spirit working in her life - specifically, that she is experiencing conviction, and that her desire is for the Lord."

The question now is then have you desired enough? are you convicted enough? look to yourselves for such conclusions.

When he says have I ever sinned to which causes me to lose my assurance you are then suggesting that my sin can cause my assurance to be effected. Again this means that no one can be assured of salvation because of sin. Again when one looks within all they see is the mire of sin and guilt before a Holy God who requires perfect obedience outside of Christ. And most professing Christians, mostly false converts, have never been taught what is the basis of assurance.

Then he asked a wiggle question if I could be wrong about this. To which I responded that I am not. Methodologies matter. How one reads the Bible matters.

Again he suggest that I am misinterpreting a few minor points with some of these theologians, and missing the difference between belief and application of belief - whatever that means?

I wouldn't call Macarthur a theologian. He suggesting and trying to defend Macarthur softly will show how this guy is inconsistent when he later says that he is against Lordship Salvation, New Perspective, and Federal Vision. 

He asked if there is any room for evidence or fruit of salvation? Faith and then works? the Fruit of the Spirit?

Again the question is already answered. These 'fruits' are imperfect and cannot be the basis of our assurance. He is wanting these fruits to be the basis or part of the basis of our assurance. They are not.

The rest of the conversation is a rehash of what I have posted on here about James and 1 John.