Well, I was clearly speaking of spiritual salvation, and the RCC position appears to be that God does not interfere with that. My point was that you would blame me for not interfering in a physical situation (less important), yet God is prevented from interfering in the more important situation. I see that as inconsistent.
As far as predestination goes, I think our respective views of it are wholly incompatible. For us, predestination involves the sovereign choices of God. He independently chooses those who will be saved. The independence is what makes it a true act, and not just the act of a stenographer. :) Therefore, double predestination is simply the logical continuation of single predestination. If God independently chooses the saved, then logically, He chooses those who will not be saved by default.
The explanation of primary and secondary causes in the WCF is designed to obscure and not be clear. If God is the author of all, including all people, then the WCF’s explanation of primary and secondary is meaningless, since the author of an object that is designed to operate in a specific fashion, unless he specifically stops or alters the operation, is expressly responsible for that object’s actions.
The explanation of the WCF is very clear to those of like minds. It is not surprising that it would be unclear to those who disagree with everything that is being said anyway. :) As I said recently to Joe, apparently your side does not believe that the concept of primary and secondary causes applies to the theater of sin. Under that presupposition, the WCF would make no sense to you on this point. We, however, disagree and say it does apply.
If I install a brake system that is designed to fail in a car, then I am responsible for the failure of that brake system. If God installs a guaranteed failure mechanism in us that ensures that we go to hell, then God is responsible, not us.
No, the brake system has no will of its own, so it cannot be considered a secondary cause in the WCF sense. In your example, you would be the primary and only cause.
If I’m walking by a house (with window close to the sidewalk - I’m not really a peeping Tom) and I see a 3 year old striking matches and starting a fire, then I am legally AND morally obligated to step in and save that child and any others that I become aware of.
From a legal standpoint, this is not correct in the United States. In this country, unless there is a duty present (e.g. parent-child), no one is required to help a "victim". Now, a few foreign countries DO have laws as you suggest, but not here. As to morality, I would agree with you that there is a moral requirement to act. But as I said, in Apostolic theology, God somehow escapes this morality even when the victims are God's own children. IOW, under your beliefs, God would be arrested even under U.S. law. :)
“No, the brake system has no will of its own, so it cannot be considered a secondary cause in the WCF sense. In your example, you would be the primary and only cause.”
Either God preordains all or He does not. If God preordains all, then any words to the contrary, are, well, contrary. If God makes me with a will to only do evil, and does not advance me the grace to change that will, then it is only God’s responsibility for me to do the evil that He made me to do.
“From a legal standpoint, this is not correct in the United States. In this country, unless there is a duty present (e.g. parent-child), no one is required to help a “victim”. Now, a few foreign countries DO have laws as you suggest, but not here.”
Aside from Massachussetts, it appears that you are correct about the United States.
“But as I said, in Apostolic theology, God somehow escapes this morality even when the victims are God’s own children. IOW, under your beliefs, God would be arrested even under U.S. law. :)”
It’s the difference between offered assistance and frogmarching the unknowingly selected elite.