The difference is huge.
The entire Reformed doctrine of limited atonement rests on the divine intent. We've never limited the potential or theoretical power of the atonement. It could have, had God so willed, propitiated the divine wrath for all who ever lived. It did not and it did not only because God willed and intended that the atonement propitiate for the elect.
That's the point. We've never restricted the power inherent in the atonement -- that's a caricature of our theology.
We've only restricted the intent because Scripture requires us to do.
That's not Amyraldianism because it, as I understand them, teaches that the atonement was universal in intent and that particularity occurs only when one actually believes.
Here's a more comprehensive survey of the doctrine of limited atonement.
rsc
It goes to potential and effect.
The potential is unlimited but the effect is limited by divine intent.
rsc
How is that different than what the 4-pointer teaches? Christ atoned for the sins of all but that atonement is only applied to those who believe. Is the 'divine intent' the only thing that separates 4 from 5 pointers? And how is 'divine intent' reflected in Ursinius the Heidleberg Answer?
Thank you, Dr. Clark. I think I get it. Christ's sacrifice was perfect. It would not be possible that it could be any more perfect. Therefore, it was of sufficient intrinsic value to atone for the sins of every man. But just because it was of sufficient intrinsic value, it was never intended by God to atone for the sins of every man but only for the sins of the elect.
I wholeheartedly agree.
But that sure doesn't sound like what the Heidleberg says!
Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.
This question, albeit taken in isolation, says Christ suffered the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind. (Which Ursininius explains is every man) To say, "What Ursinius meant was it was sufficient for all but applied only to the elect," seems to be an attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Perhaps there was typo!