The Primacy of Jesus

In his book on Armenian Theology, Olson points out that Calvinism [effectively, if unintentionally] sidelines Jesus (Ibid., p.183).

In Arminius's view the decrees of God deal with human falleness by providing a way back (salvation) through Jesus's work. In other words we don't start with God deciding who is for salvation and who for reprobation (supralapsarianism) or treat Jesus as an "after thought" as to who is for salvation/reprobation (infralapsarianism). God started with us in our falleness and God the Trinity devised a way forward. [Not that the fall was a 'surprise' I must add.]

As the following selections from Olson's book show:

Arminius did not object to the Calvinist accounts of the sovereign decrees of God because they expressed God's sovereignty or were scholastic. He believed that the Calvinist schemes of God's decrees either treated humans as abstract entities, who were not yet created much less fallen when God decreed to save some and damn others (as in supralapsarianism) or treated Jesus Christ as secondary to the predestination of some fallen humans to salvation and others to damnation (as in infralapsarianism). In fact supralapsarianism, Arminius was convinced, fell to the second objection also. He insisted on working out a scheme of the decrees of God that treats the objects of God's decrees - humans - as already fallen and as desired by God for salvation through Christ. In place of the various Calvinist schemes Arminius proposed the following one, which he saw as  "most conformable to the words of God". (Olson, Roger E., 2006, 'Arminian theology', p.183).

Arminius is scheme of the divine decree differs from both Calvinist schemes (supralapsarian and infralapsarian) in crucial ways. First, it relates only decrees of redemption; it does not begin with creation. Arminius firmly believed it is wrong to tie creation and redemption together in such a way as to imply that creation is merely a stage for the Fall and redemption. Second it begins with Jesus Christ as the predestined One. As did 20th century Reformed theologian Karl Barth, Arminius regarded Jesus Christ as the primary focus of predestination. Third it does justice to God's love by leaving the number and identities of those humans elected in Christ open and indefinite. There is no predetermination that only some will be saved. Finally it basis the election and reprobation of specific individuals on God's foreknowledge of their treatment of his offer of saving grace. (Ibid.,p.184).

… for Arminius faith is a gift. But it is resistible. Nevertheless, he clearly wanted to attribute even conversion to God and not to autonomous people. His statement on the matter is somewhat paradoxical but a perfect expression of evangelical synergism: "… therefore that the total cause why this man believes, and that does not, is the will of God and the free choice of Man." (Ibid.,p.185).

The grace of God alone

Is grace resistable and if so is that a heretical opinion? For Arminius the issue was not whether salvation is all off grace, it is, but is grace resistable? Calvinists argue that if grace were resistable salvation is not all of grace but there is some "credit" to the person making that step of faith. Arminians do not see that this makes any sense. "A gift that can be rejected is still a gift if freely received. A gift freely received is no less a gift than one received under compulsion." (Olson, River E, 2006, Aminian Theology, p.162.)

An example springs to mind that illustrates this. In Acts 12v6ff Peter is freed from jail by God. All is the work of God but Peter still had to get dressed and follow the angel. I have never heard anyone say what a great escape artist Peter was! All glory, rightly, is given to God.