Most of the debating I have seen between Calvinists and Non Calvinists on here has been about TULIP, and one thread on Calvin's treatment of Servetus among others. Yet there are other reasons why Non Calvinists reject John Calvin's teaching, and 2 of the other contentions with Calvin that I have that I want to address is: 1. Amillennialism 2. Infant Baptism The question I had for Calvinists that went unanswered was that if salvation is only for the elect, and can not be resisted being preordained, then would it not follow that a saved person's belief system would also be preordained and covered under election? Surely, if God controls all things, then there should be no disagreement among Calvinists (but there are). If God elects, ordains, and saves against the will and controls all things according to the Calvinistic interpretation, then how can there be a disagreement among Calvinists about amillennialism and infant baptism? How could God preordain Calvin's theology regarding TULIP, but not the Biblical view of the 1000 year reign and infant baptism? The Bible is clear that there will be a coming great tribulation followed by Christ's visible return to the earth in which Christ and the saints will rule and reign with Him for 1000 years. Rev 20:4. Regardless of what view many take concerning the rapture, (pre trib, mid trib, post trib) most agree that Christ is coming back after a 7 year period of tribulation. Even most Preterists do not deny this (they merely contend that Revelation 1-19 was fulfilled in AD 70, but still allow for a 1000 year reign). The Bible is also clear that Baptism is only for those who have been saved. Acts 8:37, and is an answer of a good conscience toward God. 1 Peter 3:21. Yet Calvin continued the Roman Catholic practice of baptizing infants. Are Calvinists willing to defend John Calvin's view of eschatology and baptism?