Jonathan Edwards on double predestination

In Edwards' own words: [emphasis added]

... in every act of will whatsoever, the mind chooses one thing rather than another; it chooses something rather than the contrary or rather than the want or non-existence of that thing. So in every act of refusal, the mind chooses the absence of the thing refused; ... the Will's determining between the two, is a voluntary determination; but that is the same thing as making a choice. 1

This implies that simply not choosing the non-elect, is still a choice made by God. This contradicts some claims that God does not choose (or ordain) the non-elect to damnation.

In other words, not electing some, not choosing them for salvation, is itself a choice - admittedly a choice to not choose them for election, but still a choice.

A decision to not accept an offer is still a decision, which in many cases may have involved much time, discussions, and even prayer. Such a rejection was a choice in any sense of the word.

Playing with semantics, with words, lets us (via these word games) declare that deciding to not do something is not a decision! Or, that choosing to not do something, is not a choice. 

The "emperor" still does not have any clothes, regardless of claims.  (Clothes here being validity of the claim that deciding to not elect is not a decision, or that choosing no is not a choice.) Choosing no is just as much a choice as choosing yes. Choosing no for election to eventual regeneration, is still just as much a choice as choosing yes for the eventual regeneration of the "elect."

At least, this seems to be what Edwards says here. Any claims to the contrary are logically inconsistent. In https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ Sproul argues for logic in theology.

• 1Edwards, Jonathan (1703-1758) Part I. Section I. Concerning the nature of the will. Freedom of the Will. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.html