As a person who doesn't believe in the name it and claim it, eternal security, or calvinism or to put it more strongly, believes such theology is detrimental to Christianity, I find it fascinating that this ongoing dialogue with historian firmly believing his nonelect status being told by others, who I assume believe they are part of the elect that he is too very hard to understand given that the elect go about evangelizing everyone because they cant br sure who the elect are. After all it seems to me he is a product of that system of theology who simply recognizes his status but his conclusion puts him on the wrong side of the fence.