Based upon what you know of Evangelical Calvinism, to this point, can you differentiate it from what is called Amyraldism? Here is a brief description of Amyraldism:

Amyraldism (or sometimes Amyraldianism, the School of Saumur, hypothetical universalism, or Post Redemptionism), also known as “hypothetical universalism” or “four-point Calvinism”, primarily refers to a mosesmodified form of Calvinist theology. It rejects one of the Five points of Calvinism, the doctrine of limited atonement, in favour of an unlimited atonement similar to that of Hugo Grotius. Simply stated, Amyraldism holds that God has provided Christ’s atonement for all alike, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

Named after its formulator Moses Amyraut, this doctrine is still viewed as a variety of Calvinism in that it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in the application of the atonement. However, detractors like B. B. Warfield have termed it “an inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism.”

Moses Amyraut, originally a lawyer, but converted to the study of theology by the reading of Calvin’s ‘Institutes,’ an able divine and voluminous writer, developed the doctrine of hypothetical or conditional universalism, for which his teacher, John Cameron (1580–1625), a Scot, and for two years Headmaster of Saumur Academy, had prepared the way. His object was not to set aside, but to moderate Calvinism by ingrafting this doctrine upon the particularism of election, and thereby to fortify it against the objections of Roman Catholics, by whom the French Protestants, or Huguenots, were surrounded and threatened. Being employed by the Reformed Synod in important diplomatic negotiations with the government, he came in frequent contact with bishops, and with Cardinal Richelieu, who esteemed him highly. His system is an approach, not so much to Arminianism, which he decidedly rejected, as to Lutheranism, which likewise teaches a universal atonement and a limited election.

Amyraut maintained the Calvinistic premises of an eternal foreordination and foreknowledge of God, whereby he caused all things inevitably to pass—the good efficiently, the bad permissively. He also admitted the double decree of election and reprobation; though his view on double predestination is modified slightly by his view of double election. In addition to this he taught that God foreordained a universal salvation through the universal sacrifice of Christ offered to all alike, on condition of faith, so that on the part of God’s will and desire, the grace is universal, but as regards the condition it is particular, or only for those who do not reject it and thereby make it ineffective. The universal redemption scheme precedes the particular election scheme, and not vice versa. He reasons from the benevolence of God towards his creatures; Calvinism, he thought, improperly reasons from the result and makes actual facts interpret the decrees. Amyraut distinguished between objective grace which is offered to all, and subjective grace in the heart which is given only to the elect. He also makes a distinction between natural ability and moral ability, or the power to believe and the willingness to believe; man possesses the former, but not the latter, in consequence of inherent depravity. It, therefore, takes an act of God to illuminate the mind, thereby engaging the will towards action. He was disposed, like Zwingli, to extend the grace of God beyond the limits of the visible Church, inasmuch as God by his general providence operates upon the heathen, as in the case of Malachi 1:11, 14, and may produce in them a sort of unconscious Christianity, a faith without knowledge; while within the Church he operates more fully and clearly through the means of grace. Those who never heard of Christ are condemned if they reject the general grace of providence; but the same persons would also reject Christ if he were offered to them. As regards the result, Amyraut agreed with the particularists. His ideaology is unavailable, except for those in whom God previously works the condition of faith, that is, for those who are included in the particular decree of election. (Taken from: Wikipedia)

Clearly there is ‘some’ similarity between EC and Amyraldianism, in fact Amyraut was a student of John Cameron who TFT lists as an ‘Evangelical Calvinist’ in his book Scottish Theology; nevertheless, there is a difference, can you identify it?