They also argue that it was never endorsed by Calvin or the Synod of Dort. They refer to both Calvin's claim that "It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world'" and to Article 3 of the Second Main Point of Doctrine of the Synod of Dort which states that "This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.". Others, however, claim that Calvin and the Canons of Dort are somewhat vague on this issue and accept the claim of limited atonement that the efficacy of his death was limited both in purpose and scope to the elect, though they believe his death was sufficient payment for the sin of the whole world. With regard to the limited purpose or intent of the atonement to save only the elect, another argument was put forth later in the 17th century. Moses Amyraut and several others (Amyraldists) proposed a system called hypothetical universalism, which taught that in God's decree for Christ to be a sufficient atonement for all sin, his intention was to save all on condition that they believe. This decree was prior to his decree to elect some people for whom the atonement was to be efficacious, and so the efficacy of the atonement was still limited to the elect. Most of the Reformed rejected this view because it envisioned a decree of God (the conditional decree to save all) that was intentionally not realized. The doctrine of the limited scope (or extent) of the atonement is intimately tied up with the doctrine of the nature of the atonement. It also has much to do with the general Calvinist view of predestination. Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory, known as penal substitution, states that the atonement of Christ pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men—that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for sins and thereby receives in himself the penalty of the sins of men. The doctrine of limited atonement is often argued from the theological argument of double jeopardy. In the limited view, Jesus Christ has taken the penalty of the elect - that Jesus died for those who would believe, so that those for whom Christ died must be saved and cannot be damned as it would be unjust for God to punish the same sins twice (double jeopardy).