I thought, however, that Baptist theology is closer to Calvin's than to Wesley's - am I wrong?
English Baptists began in two places and at slightly different dates. The first were English exiles in the Netherlands who believed the teaching of Arminius that Christ died for all men generally, and so were called General Baptists. About twenty years laters (1630s) a second grouping arose actually in England, who believed the teaching of Calvin, that Christ died only for the elect in particular, and were called Particular Baptists. Both streams developed separately, the Particular Baptists being much stronger numerically, till about the 1770s when most General Baptists slid away from Christianity altogether and apostatised into Unitarianism, denying the Trinity. Some remained though. By about the 1880s theological differences had softened, and most joined up to form what is today's "Baptist Union", to which (I believe) about three-quarters of English Baptist churches belong. Some outside the Union retain the title Particular Baptist, but its meaning is now understood only by people who know about history, though they still hold particular redemption.
So there's a rather long and rambling half-answer to your question. General Baptists and Methodists both hold the teaching of Arminius on the extent of the Atonement, that Christ died for all. I have heard that most American Baptist are Arminian (general redemption).
If I may say so, your previous post (on justification) is so good that it ought to go on to the "Why do Protestants reject Orthodoxy?" thread as well as staying on this one, because it goes right to the innermost heart of the matter. It is said there was once a little girl who learned her twelve-times tables, and proudly recited them to her grandfather, from 1x1=1 all the way to 12x12=144. Granddad paused and then asked, "What is 13x13?" After a few moments puzzled reflection, the girl replied, "Don't be silly, Grandad. There's no such thing!" The idea of a multiplication beyond the ones she had learned was incomprehensibly outside her world. Likewise, the idea of a personal faith which does not begin with an instantaneous new birth, or conversion, is beyond anything we can conceive - though we know that a minority of real Christians cannot pinpoint the moment of their conversion: they know they believe, but they cannot remember a time when they didn't. Faith came as a gradually dawning consciousness of belief. But nonetheless, there was a moment, known only to God, when that sipiritual new birth quietly took place:
How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is given,
When God imparts to human hearts
The wonders of his heaven!
No ear may hear his coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him, still
The dear Christ enters in.
Maybe to cradle Orthodox, our belief in (and, in the main, experience of) a moment of conversion - which, I emphasise, must be followed by a life of growth in Christ - is as odd and inconceivable as theirs is to us. To us, yours SOUNDS like working for your own salvation, to earn it, but I know from many posts on this forum that you do not see it like that at all. It is probably true that we disagree; but it is probably more true that we don't even begin to understand the other's concepts enough to really even disagree with them. What do you think?