My recent post about Arminius' impact on Calvinism drew criticisms from Turretinfan and Steve Hays. (link) TF suggests one could read my article and come to the conclusion that Arminius was a infralapsarian. I am not sure how that could be, given I said Dort condemned Arminianism.
Steve wonders if I think Arminius originated some ideas that impacted Calvinism, but I had said "Arminius didn't teach anything new". Origination of the ideas isn't the only way to impact an outcome. Piscator fought tooth and nail to keep the 'well meant' offer out of the confession, at one point saying he would count the rest of the synodists as Remonstrants if he didn't get his way on the issue, but in the end he as overruled. (Womock. Calvinist Cabinet Unlocked. 94) It's important that the issue turned out this way rather than that, and Arminius got attention on the issue by point out the drawbacks of denying a well meant offer.
TF said "When the Westminster Assembly (still later) adopted their confession and catechisms they were actually more careful (I'd say) to avoid making the Supra/Infra distinction a confessional matter."
Dort debated the issue of infra/supra. Gomarus championed the supra side, along with at least Piscator, Festus Hominmius, Henricus Aroldi, Baltazar Lydius and Gisbertus Voetius (Acts of National Synod of Dort. Part 1. 233) . The synod choose their wording on this issue carefully.
But TF's comment about the 'openness' of the WCF reminders me of another point. TF notes well the WCF is open to supra, but WCF is also open to unlimited atonement. It was written such that both 5 point Calvinists and 4 pointers would be satisfied. TF himself has noted Arminius' influence on Amyraldianism. So that's another way in which Arminius impacted Calvinism. (I didn't note this in my first post, because Arminius' influence here was certainly far more remote.)