Just for the record, I never said that I believe in universal atonement. I simply make the sufficiency/efficiency distinction. It seems ignorant to call this Amyraldianism. I make the distinction in its traditional sense, not as Owen later redefined it.

Sufficient atonement and universal atonement are not the same thing in historic reformed theology. If one would like to make a case that logically tries to connect the two, that would be fine, but the tone of this discussion does not seem to be conducive to a give-and-take conversation.

"To this purpose a distinction is made by the Fathers and retained by many divines, “that Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect only.” This is perfectly true, if it be understood of the dignity of Christ’s death, though the phrase is not accurate if it be referred to the will and purpose of Christ. The question which we discuss concerns the purpose of the Father in sending his Son, and the intention of the Son in dying. Did the Father destine his Son for a Saviour to all men and every man, and did the Son deliver himself up to death, with a design to substitute himself in the room of all men of all nations, to make satisfaction and acquire salvation for them? Or, did he resolve to give himself for the elect only, who were given him by the Father to be redeemed, and whose Head he was to be?"

- Turretin