Given the above Amyraldian scheme, instead of a divine decree as being unconditional or absolute, (perhaps, in our ideas thought of as a set of such unconditional decrees) Amyraut seems to have preferred to think in terms of an antecedent will of God which could be frustrated by the will of men and women, and a consequent divine will which could not be frustrated. These differently-understood divine ’wills’ took the place of a set of absolute decrees. (So the idea of one all-encompassing decree seems to have played little or no part in his thought). The difference between ‘antecedent’ and ‘consequent’ was not merely terminological, but had the consequence of confusing the secret will of God, which can never be frustrated, (the ‘consequent will’) and the revealed will of God (the ‘antecedent will’) which of course could and was (or is being) spurned by a fallen race, according to Amyraldianism. This was, as far as I can see, a purely speculative construction, whose only biblical warrant is that it endeavours to do justice to Scriptural expressions of Christ’s death being for ‘the world’.
‐Paul Helm, Amyraut and Amyraldianism
Anything to fight off the fact that God Said.