Regardless of what Wesley's opinion, and observation may have been, there definately are a significant number of professing Christians that fit the above description.
The denial of original sin, justification by works, and the ability to fall from grace, are the foundation of the 'perfectability' and authority of man.
No disagreement here.
The question that must be asked are those things happening because of Arminian/Wesley teaching or despite it!
Wesley himself is very critical of what he saw in the Methodist movement,leaving their 'first love'
Creating a caricature of what any system teaches does not allow us to find either its strengths or weaknesses, the basis of which is how much does it align itself with what Scripture teaches.
If we are going to discuss what a particular theology teaches and it's implications, let us use those who best represent that system, not those who have left it.
I would expect this in discussing Romanism, Calvinism, Armininism, Baptist theology and any other system of belief.
Maybe Armininism had the seeds within it that logically led to Pinnock and Boyd rejecting God's absolute foreknowledge.
Maybe it is simply a failure on their part to correctly understand what the Bible teaches on it and that Arminius and Wesley had no problem with it.
Regarding the current apostasy, Reformed churches are in no better shape then the Arminian ones.
Thus, a simplistic appeal to the 'lie of Eden' as if that was what either Arminius or Wesley taught is useless in finding out why Christianity is in the state it is.
Because man is active in God's Plan, does not mean that man is not dependent on God.
Being active (faith) does not mean a work (merit-Rom.4:4-5), only that volition is involved, and that is the way that God wanted it (in His sovereignity)