“Behind the theological debate lay a political one between Prince Maurice, a strong military leader, and his former mentor Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Grand Pensionary of Holland and personification of civil power. Maurice, who had Calvinist leanings, desired war with Holland’s enemy, Roman Catholic Spain. Oldenbarnevelt, along with Arminius and his followers, desired peace. In the years after Arminius’ death, Maurice became convinced that Oldenbarnevelt (and by association, Arminians) had strong Catholic sympathies and were working to deliver Holland to Spain. As insurance, Maurice and his militia systematically and forcibly replaced Remonstrant magistrates with Calvinist ones. Thus, when the State General called for a synod in 1618, its outcome was predetermined. Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius were arrested, and the synod, held at Dordrecht, convened.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinist-Arminian_debate

And yes, although I really like Olson’s book, I was pretty turned off by his attitude in the article I linked to. When even the standard-bearer of irenic Arminianism makes comments like that, I suppose we can expect the friction to continue.

i’m not sure what history you are looking at – calvin died when jacobus arminius was 3 years old. i’m fairly confident that calvin did not accuse him of anything nor did arminius affect any of calvin’s theological positions.

there are unpleasant people on both sides. i hope you don’t become one of them even after many years of being told by arminians (such as the one you linked to) that you “naturally” believe that “God is the ‘author of sin,’ and that your God is “indistinguishable from the devil”…

http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46486