In the "TULIP Question" thread, the subject of Double Predestination was broached, or rather why some Calvinists don't believe in double predestination.

I thought this topic deserved its own thread.

In an effort to understand where those in the Reformed community who reject the doctrine called “Double Predestination” I found out the following.

One of the arguments that those among the Reformed community say they reject the doctrine of “double predestination” is they believe that the word “predestination” in Scripture is always used as an action that God uses on man. They agree that when it comes to the elect, God does “predestine”, but when it comes to the non-elect God does not take any action. Instead He leaves them in their unsaved state. They go on to say that if indeed God’s causation is responsible in the same way He is for the elect to become saved; then by necessity God is author of the un-elect’s sin and condemnation, rather than their sin and condemnation on themselves.
In an article written by Tony Warren called ‘Double Predestination (Intrinsical or Interpretive)’, he states the following:
Quote
While the phrase "double Predestination" may be unbiblical, often the doctrine held by some of those Theologians using it is quite sound Biblically. Yet with others it goes well beyond the boundaries of scripture. While I certainly understand what I believe 'most' Reformed Theologians intend in using this term, and completely agree with the view of God's complete sovereignty, I do have a major problem both with the phrase 'Double Predestination' itself, and the definition that it unquestionably implies. Some have deemed this simply semantics and thus not really important, and in some cases I think this probably is true. However, I do think that proper scriptural linguistics is important, especially in such a potentially confusing issue as this one is. Because while many think that they are protecting God's sovereignty by using such language, I believe that this phrase actually distorts the undergirding of truth by implying God Himself appointed men to sin.
Besides, it is self evident that the term 'double predestination' does not sufficiently delineate the biblical position that God from eternity decided 'not to choose' unto Salvation a host of people who were desperately wicked on their own. This truth alone should give us reason to pause. For this is the Biblical doctrine of preordination, and has nothing to do with double predestination. The subtle difference is that predestination is always an 'action' by God which moves something or someone to assure that something will occur. e.g., God had to take action to move us, "before determining" (predestining) that we could/would seek after Christ and conform to His image. In other words, it wouldn't have happened except God took some action to "force" it to happen…
For further reading please go to: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/double_predestination.html
I would like to get some feedback on this line of reasoning, especially calling this preordination, rather than double predestination.