Exactly what I said Calvin holds to. However this is what I find troublesome. What are these things really saying? I don't deny or find troublesome that God has eternal and Immutable purpose or a secret council or good pleasure. However, none of these things are defined and thus is what they are really saying is that God makes election based on ambiguity or even (the lord forbid) Chance. Who's to say randomness doesn't meet these definitions? Randomness certainly meets the eternal qualifier. And it meets immutable qualifier in the sense that if God consistently chooses in this manner and never changes mode then randomness fits there too. Randomness (a toss of the die or coin) can be his secret council or even good pleasure to do so. And if that is the case then randomness becomes the greater force in the universe than God. Nevertheless even if this isn't the case the terms remain ambiguous in definition and thus by ambiguous means God choses the elect. Thats what I find problematic in this view.
I just knew you would say that! ROFL. did you see my earlier commentary to Tom Vols?