Harley, Harley, Harley. You should know better than that. Heck even Calvin ended up disagreeing with his own institutes on the finer points of soteriology, but soteriology is only one point of Calvin's teachings. Arminius only disagreed with Calvin inasmuch as Calvin was a supralapsarian. I think that position by Calvin took up only the last chapter of the institutes and I don't think Calvin reiterated it as strongly in his commentaries.
To say that Arminius, who I'm sure read a lot more Calvin than you, disagreed with just about everything Calvin wrote is just not true. And Calvin was just a man like Arminius. Even old Calvin disagreed with young Calvin on some points. It was not Calvin that was the problem, but the rigid interpretation of Calvin's teachings on the mysteries of soteriology as enunciated in some of the confessions that was Arminius' problem.
And Rightly so. These should not be matters in which a man's fealty to the bible should be tested.
Ohhhhhhh pleazzzzzzzzzzzzze. Arminius died in October of 1609 and the very next year Arminius' followers published the Remonstrance of 1610. The 5 points of the Remonstrance was deemed heresy by the Synod of Dordt in 1618-19 which lead to the TULIP. Arminius' followers didn't get the Remonstrance 5 pointers from Joe Bazooka bubble gum wrappers.
While Arminius spent most of his time refuting Supralapsarian, it is also clear that Arminius rejected INFRAlapsarianism as well. He simply concluded that INFRAlapsarianism was ultimately the same thing as SUPRAlapsarianism.
And he denounced them both, thus limiting God to men's ability to open doors.