It is because of stuff like the following (along with what I believe are disingenuous distinctions of sincere-offer/dualistic atonement/grace Calvinists), that I find Curt Daniel’s brand of Calvinism even more disgusting that Arminianism:
“8. The Double Payment Argument.
A. This is another argument that needs refinement. It can easily be misused by either side. It is summed up in the famous lines from A.M. Toplady’s hymn, ‘Rock of Ages’, viz, ‘Payment cannot God twice demand, First at my bleeding surety’s hand, and then again at mine.’ If Christ paid the debt for all men, then all men must necessarily be saved. If someone goes to Hell, then God demands payment twice — first at the Cross, and then in Hell.
B. But this has weaknesses. First, it is nowhere taught in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly. Why cannot God hold men extra guilty on account of the death of Christ? I would rephrase the argument as follows. Christ died in one sense for all men. Some are given the gift of faith to believe in Christ crucified, and this ratifies the payment of their debt. The rest do not receive faith, for the atonement is never applied to them. Does that mean their debt was totally paid? No, it means that the account was never finally settled. The potential payment for them was never ratified. But since there was a payment in some sense, this redounds to a greater condemnation. Calvin spoke of such persons as ‘doubly culpable.’ They are punished first for their sins, and secondly because Christ provided a payment that they never accepted” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism, p. 371).
This kind of Calvinistic garbage is why the apostle Paul spoke of deceitful workers, and why Christ spoke of those who lie like their father the Devil. In Daniel’s view, it is the sinner’s “rubber-stamping,” that ultimately determines how God will view the Sacrificial Offering. Evidently, the sweet-smelling odor of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice — His atoning blood and imputed righteousness — is NOT pleasing and satisfying enough in and of itself, to propitiate the eternal deluge of God’s holy wrath. But somehow, the sinner’s “rubber-stamping” IS pleasing and satisfying enough in and of itself, to propitiate the eternal deluge of God’s holy wrath.
And thus, it is the sinner’s self-righteous stench of “rubber-stamping,” that is the “odor of a sweet smell,” INSTEAD OF the offering and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Picture the exceedingly pernicious portrait that Curt Daniel paints:
The sweet-smelling odor of Christ’s sacrifice ascends into the nostrils of a thrice-Holy God (Isaiah 6:1-5) on behalf of the elect and non-elect. Some (the non-elect) for whom the sacrificial odor ascends, are swallowed up by God’s unmitigated fury. What this necessarily implies — no matter what these self-righteous-blood-despising-Christ-haters say to the contrary — is that God views Christ’s sacrifice as a malodorous stench, rather than a SATISFYING aroma.
The elect “are given the gift of faith to believe in Christ crucified.” The odor of this “debt-ratifying faith” ascends into the nostrils of God, and does what the odor of Christ’s sacrifice was unable to do: it, this “faith,” is able to SATISFY God in and of itself. The odor of Christ’s sacrifice ascends, and there is DISSATISFACTION since many end up in hell. But then the “rubber-stamping” odor of sinner ascends, and now there is SATISFACTION.
The staggering irony is that Curt Daniel’s faith is NOT in Christ crucified, since to Daniel, Christ crucified is NOT what SATISFIES the wrath of God. Daniel’s so-called “faith” is what made satisfaction; this is not faith in Christ crucified, but a SUBSTITUTION of the sinner’s “spiritually-enabled” gift of faith in Christ’s stead. This is the very epitome of anti-christ. This is what the apostle John is writing and warning about in his epistles.
Webster’s thesaurus cannot provide me with adequate enough adjectives to describe the repulsion I have for Curt Daniel and those who believe like him.
“Then become imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell” (Ephesians 5:1-2).
Curt Daniel’s diabolical dung puts forth the lie that the sinner is “effectually enabled” to control God’s hand in the matter of being satisfied or dissatisfied with the sacrifice of His own Son. Daniel’s view says:
If the sinner repudiates Christ’s sacrifice, then God agrees with him and also repudiates the sacrifice; and if the sinner approves of the sacrifice, then God also approves of the sacrifice. Referring to the non-elect, Daniel asks:
“Does that mean their debt was totally paid? No, it means that the account was never finally settled. The potential payment for them was never ratified.”
In spite of what Jesus Christ said on the cross, Daniel says, “It is NOT finished.” Satisfaction is dependent upon the sinner’s efforts, not Christ’s. Pointing to John 3:16, these types of Calvinists blasphemously assert that God gives the NON-SATISFYING gift of His Son to the elect and non-elect alike, while only giving the SATISFYING “gift of faith” to the elect.
Calvinists like Daniel do not know Isaiah’s thrice-holy God. They do not truly know that God is a consuming fire, as the book of Hebrews tells us. With boldness beyond that of a madman, they seek to enter the Holiest Place, NOT by the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19), but by the “gift of [their] faith.” They are woefully ignorant of the ONLY way into the Holies (Hebrews 9:8-28, 10:19-20; cf. Romans 10:1-4).
“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in them; and they put incense on it and brought strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. And fire went out from before Jehovah and consumed them; and they died before Jehovah. And Moses said to Aaron, It is that which Jehovah has spoken, saying, I will be sanctified by those drawing near to Me; and I will be honored before all the people. And Aaron was silent” (Leviticus 10:1-3).
It is actually the censer of Curt Daniel’s “‘faith’ in Christ crucified,” that makes the difference between being saved and being consumed, rather than the censer of Christ crucified.
God has certainly commanded that all men put their faith in Christ crucified. But God has NOT commanded the type of “faith” that REJECTS Christ crucified as the only difference between being saved and being consumed, between entering in and not entering in, to the Holy of Holies.