SoldierofChrist said:
I don't think God decided to send one to hell before the foundation of the world. I believe He simply just left them alone to condemn themselves. I realize that in His sovereignty He chose some to be elect and naturally, those who aren't elect are already condemned to hell, God's grace is what makes the difference, not His predetermined will. I think it can end up becoming semantics, so I don't think it matters.
I agree completely that the argument between the validity about single predestination vs. double predestination is rather pointless, so long as both schools of thought acknowledge that the grace of God in regenerating someone unto life is not only necessary for eternal life but efficient in bringing it to pass. However, that distinction must be made.
I personally think that those who are in favor of a legitimate view of single predestination are too vehement in their opposition toward the proper explanation of double predestination because, for all intents and purposes, they are espousing the same thing.
For instance, you say, "I don't think God decided to send one to hell before the foundation of the world. I believe He simply just left them alone to condemn themselves." If this is true, and I, as an advocate of
double predestination would agree with the second half of that quote, don't you agree that God made a decision to leave them to condemn themselves? And, don't you agree that He made that decision before the foundation of the world? In fact, don't you agree that God had to have made a decision one way or the other, either for election unto salvation or reprobation unto eternal condemnation? The reason I claim that His decision was necessary is because the Bible is clear that all things live and move and have their being in God. If He does not sustain them then they are not sustained. I have always found it unnecessary to try and protect God from unfounded claims of unrighteousness against His holy character when people take issue with the biblical idea of double predestination because, nine times out of ten, what they are actually taking issue with is the unbiblical idea of equal ultimacy.
As I have expressed on numerous occasions to people who argue against double predestination is that there is no middle ground for God. It is impossible for Him to stand back and merely observe what comes to pass because it comes to pass by His immutable will. Granted, it is temporally accomplished through secondary causes but it had to come to pass.
So, my point is simply that in saying that God "simply just left them alone to condemn themselves" you are merely stating that God made a choice to "simply just left them alone to condemn themselves." If you agree that He made this choice, the question you should ask yourself is, "Did He make the choice in eternity, before the foundations of the world, as the Bible purports, or does He make this decision during our temporal life?"
God bless
Very well put 
