Predestination and Calvinism

[Chopper]

While I sincerely do appreciate your responses, this post that you have responded was initially meant for another poster. If I may point out, I have specifically submitted a post to you that is a response to one of your prior posts, but for whatever reason it remains unanswered. That would be post #306. Respectfully, it would be informative to me, pertaining to your personal views, if you would respond to that post. Thank you for your time and patience.

I believe I addressed that in post #318.

 

[ivdavid]

One must not use Romans 9-11 to establish predestination for the purpose of salvation. If predestination and election were for that purpose then every Jew should have been saved. Paul says that he would gladly give up his salvation for the sake of his Jewish brethren: For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: (Rom 9:3).

This in itself proves that there is no election/predestination for salvation.

Do you see that Paul addresses this very point of yours in the same passages, therein reaffirming that we are indeed in the right context of predetermined election unto salvation.

Paul states Rom 9:3 just as you do, and then pre-empts the very same objection that you have - namely, if the Israelites are the chosen(elect) people of God, then how can they be accursed from Christ - how can God's promises to His own elect people fail? He begins that very defense from Rom 9:6, by stating not all are Israel who are of Israel - but rather those that are children of Promise (Rom 9:8) - in whom God's word has not failed at all (Rom 11:1,2,5). Is this strong congruence still unconvincing for you?

 

[Cygnus]

What about 1 Timothy 2:4 ?

Well, we do know the "all" in that verse doesn't mean every single human that ever was or will be...

 

[Cygnus]

...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.
Ephesians 1:4


God chose those who chose to be in Christ.


JLB

Seems as if you added between the lines. God chooses us, we don't choose God.

 

[Cygnus]

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9


For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. Mark 3:35



JLB

Once again you post scripture way out of the original context.
If God is not willing ANY shall perish....then I suppose you're into universalism. You do know that some people will perish?

 

[ivdavid]

What you have done by selecting individual verses is an outcome of that misunderstanding of the structure of Paul's letters. The verses are not little pieces of wisdom which can stand alone. They are parts of a whole thesis which we improperly strip out of their place in order to insert them into a new and too often unrelated thesis which we are building in support of some modern theological innovation.

That's quite a lot of presumption, given that we have reached no conclusion yet in our discussion. I would rather we simply discuss the Scriptural texts than speculate on what motives the other is operating by and towards. ( Since this is text and we can never discern the tone and intent of one another easily enough, honest question: Does the "we" in your statement imply that you too have improperly stripped parts out of their place and built some modern theological innovation , or was that an attempt to be polite in your criticism? I ask this in order to know if you speak from experience or in condescension. )

If (when) Israel failed to keep the covenant, they would be cast out of the promised land and scattered among the pagan nations. Only a remnant of them would survive to return.

According to you, why and in what context is Paul quoting Isaiah on the saving of the remnant to return to the promised land from various pagan nations on earth? How does it fit in right after the calling unto salvation (Rom 9:24) and right before faith unto salvation (Rom 9:30) ?
According to what I'd presented, it fits perfectly within the context of whether God's word has failed in not all Israel being saved (unto eternal life, not the temporal life on earth Rom 9:3) (Rom 9:6) - Paul alluding to Scriptures itself to validate this.

The grace was extended to them because they were steadfast in their commitment to serve the Lord.

I hope we can agree upon the fact that the phrase "Election of grace" in Rom 11:5 means that the Election was on the basis of the grace of God and not on the works of men (Rom 11:6). Also, do you hold "steadfast commitment" to be something other than the works of men?

God knew that Esau would have no regard for his birthright and that Jacob would highly value it. So, by grace, because Jacob did not merit the birthright, he inherited his brother's birthright in spite of the deceitful manner by which he acquired it.

This ties in to the previous Rom 11:5 reference to election of grace too. I believe your basing God's grace on what Jacob and Esau would do, is explicitly refuted in Rom 9:11 - that God's purposes in election is not based on man's good or evil works but on God who calls.

 

[Butch5]

No. In my theology, as well as John Calvin, there is such a thing called "Irresistible Grace". It is the sovereignly given gift of faith that cannot be rejected by the Elect. God did not look into the future and see who would choose Him and then elect them. God chose men before they were born to be a part of a Remnant that would love and be obedient to His Commands and to be a witness to all others.

My theology includes what Calvin did not address, and that is the "General Call of the Gospel" in which, as the Evangelists go out spreading the Gospel, men and women have a free will choice to either accept God's offer of Salvation or not.

Thank you for your questions.

I bolded the part above. That idea is based on one passage of Scripture Eph 1:4. If that interpretation is wrong then that idea has no support in SCripture

Oh, wow!! Now I understand where you're coming from. Interesting to say the least. I've never heard it that way. I guess you could say that there was a dispensation of time whereby predestination was working and once the Messiah was born, the dispensation ended, or shortly there after.

I'd have to have Scripture to back up this notion of yours, I don't see it at all.

The Scriptures that I would present are the passages that speak of predestination. I submit that they are all referring to Israel.

 

[Jim Parker]

I would rather we simply discuss the Scriptural texts than speculate on what motives the other is operating by and towards.

Then I suggest that you discuss them in context so as to avoid applying them to concepts foreign to the theses of the document.
And I was not speculating. I am confident that you are aware that here are many strange teachings which are purported to be based on some snippet of scripture.

why and in what context is Paul quoting Isaiah on the saving of the remnant to return to the promised land from various pagan nations on earth?

The context of Romans 9 is provided by Paul in the opening verses of the chapter. (1 through 9)
I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.
But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.
What is the promise?
Gen 22:17-18 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.
Unless a remnant of faithful had returned to Judea, the descendants of Israel would have been absorbed into the pagan nations. There would have been no Jewish messiah born in Bethlehem.

How does it fit in right after the calling unto salvation (Rom 9:24) and right before faith unto salvation (Rom 9:30)?

Paul answers that.
Rom 9:3-31 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law.

Salvation has always been based in faith. The Law of Moses didn't promise NT "salvation"; it promised that, if Israel kept the law, it would go well with them and they would live long in the promised land. (Deu 5:33) There wasn't a word about the eternal life offered to all who would believe in the New Covenant.
Paul is explaining that being a descendant of Abraham and having received the Law meant nothing to a person who did not have faith in God.

I hope we can agree upon the fact that the phrase "Election of grace" in Rom 11:5 means that the Election was on the basis of the grace of God and not on the works of men (Rom 11:6).

Salvation comes only by the grace of God. God is under no necessity to save anyone but He has graciously chosen to give eternal life to whoever believes in Jesus and keeps His commands as best he can. Salvation would not exist without God's grace and man would not be blessed with salvation without exercising faith and practicing faithfulness.

This ties in to the previous Rom 11:5 reference to election of grace too.

All salvation is by grace and according to God's gracious will. But the 5th verse of Rom 11 does not stand by itself.
Rom 11:1-5 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Eli'jah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have demolished thy altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
What remnant is chosen by grace? (not "of" grace, but "by" grace) The remnant that remained faithful. Who else would God elect? The rebellious and apostate? Certainly not.

I believe your basing God's grace on what Jacob and Esau would do, is explicitly refuted in Rom 9:11

Rom 9:6-11 But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call,..
And what was God's purpose?
It was that out of the tribe of Judah would come the son of Abraham, the son of Isaac, the son of Jacob, the son of David, the son of Mary who is the Son of God.
It was not whether either child had done anything but that Esau would not produce the line which led to Jesus and, therefore could not be used for God's purpose. Jacob would produce that line, thereby fulfilling God's purpose, and, therefore, he was chosen.

God's purposes in election is not based on man's good or evil works but on God who calls.

Men's good or evil works do not qualify or disqualify anyone to be used by God for His purposes. Even the man who strives all his life to do good works is not by those works qualified. (Luke 17:10 So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, "We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.")
God's election is based on God's purposes and His purpose is that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Act 2:21, Rom 10:13)

iakov the fool

 

[childeye]

Ok, I'm really pleased that you are accepting the General Call of the Gospel. Now, you did not mention the Holy Spirit. In my theology of the General Call, the Holy Spirit is the One of the godhead that calls sinners to repentance....

John 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Once a person has been in a position to hear the Gospel, probably moved by the Holy Spirit, upon hearing the Gospel of Christ's death burial and resurrection, the Holy Spirit's power either convicts that person of their sinful nature and they of their own free will choice accept this Grace of God and by faith, believes on Jesus the Son of God. Others may hear the same message preached and are unmoved to make a decision by his own free will. It all comes down to a choice, do they or don't they.

I see. I wasn't sure, but I can now be more confident that when you say 'freewill', you simply mean that a person inevitably must make a choice to believe or not upon hearing the Gospel. While I agree with you that the Holy Spirit convinces a person to confess the Christ as Lord, and also that faith is a pre-requisite, I don't see the presence of a freewill in the process.

 

[ivdavid]

Then I suggest that you discuss them in context so as to avoid applying them to concepts foreign to the theses of the document.
And I was not speculating.

You're speculating right there that in my discussion, I am taking verses out of context and am applying them to foreign concepts - when we are yet to even conclude on the discussion. What if at the end of the discussion you find yourself to have misinterpreted these passages and its context? It is natural that all here believe they are each being faithful to Scriptures, but to operate on a certainty that there is no way they could be wrong without the express revelation of God is to rely on the flesh. Which is why I asked you if you speak from experience or not - for I have found myself to have held on to erroneous interpretations in the past and consequently I am both careful not to speak on things I have not fully understood and to patiently listen to other doctrinal explanations to verify from Scripture if indeed I am holding on to the correct interpretation.

The context of Romans 9 is provided by Paul in the opening verses of the chapter....
Unless a remnant of faithful had returned to Judea, the descendants of Israel would have been absorbed into the pagan nations. There would have been no Jewish messiah born in Bethlehem.

And this causes great sorrow in Paul over fellow Israelites being accursed from Christ (Rom 9:2-3) ? When this is the context provided in the opening verses of this chapter, how does a Rom 9:27 interpretation of a temporal saving from pagan lands on earth fit into this context of Israelites not having salvation unto eternal life in Rom 9:3?
Besides, if Paul was making the point that a remnant has returned to Judea and consequently the Messiah is born in Bethlehem - what is the next point that he wishes to make based on this?

How does it fit in right after the calling unto salvation (Rom 9:24) and right before faith unto salvation (Rom 9:30) ?

Paul answers that.
Rom 9:3-31
Salvation has always been based in faith.

What you've done is show that Rom 9:32 is the explanation for Rom 9:30-31 - and that is all very fine. But what I'd asked was why is Paul quoting Isaiah in Rom 9:27 about a temporal saving from pagan lands on earth and then suddenly jumping out of context to salvation being based in faith? Similarly why is Paul referring to this temporal saving right after referring to the calling unto salvation in Rom 9:24? Why would Paul break context in quoting Rom 9:27 - unless he intended to apply that verse too into this flowing context of salvation unto eternal life?

 

[ivdavid]

I hope we can agree upon the fact that the phrase "Election of grace" in Rom 11:5 means that the Election was on the basis of the grace of God and not on the works of men (Rom 11:6).

Salvation comes only by the grace of God.

While I do agree with you on Salvation being only by the grace of God, I still need clarification if that's the same as you agreeing from Rom 11:5-6 that Election too is on the basis of the grace of God alone and not on the works of men?

What remnant is chosen by grace? (not "of" grace, but "by" grace) The remnant that remained faithful. Who else would God elect? The rebellious and apostate? Certainly not.

Is there some significant difference between "of grace" and "by grace" here? I was merely quoting the KJV where Rom 11:5 does state "election of grace" and the greek grammar too supports it. In any case, I do not see any issue with the phrase "election by grace" as long as you do not separate the qualification of "grace" from "election" - which the greek grammar does not lend itself to.

God's election being based on His grace and not man's works, as illustrated in Rom 9:11,Rom 11:5-6, refutes the need for God to base it on what man does. Besides, Why would He need to base it on man, when He Himself is able to write His laws in man's heart and cause man to walk and work according to His pleasure His ordained good works (Jer 31:33, Eze 36:27, Php 2:13, Eph 2:10) ?

It was not whether either child had done anything but that Esau would not produce the line which led to Jesus and, therefore could not be used for God's purpose. Jacob would produce that line, thereby fulfilling God's purpose, and, therefore, he was chosen.

Haven't you got that backwards? Esau could not be used because Esau's lineage did not lead to Jesus? Is lineage determined by God or by man/something else apart from God? Couldn't the God who can make descendants from stones, cause a lineage line through Esau leading to Jesus if He had so willed?
And if God was constrained by the fact that only Jacob would produce that lineage, what is Jacob then being "chosen" for - when anyway God knows Jesus will be born in that lineage?
It makes better sense to say that God could have fulfilled His purpose in either Jacob or Esau - but that He "chose" Jacob over Esau for it, independent of what they each would do or not do, but by His own sovereign calling.

His purpose is that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

We both agree on that. Where we differ is on holding how man calls on the name of the Lord - does he do it after being regenerated first or not. If he is regenerated first before believing, then on what basis is he regenerated and not another who is still unbelieving. The answer to that is sovereign election - but of course, to get to that stage in discussion, we'll have to get past the doctrine of total inability of the flesh.

 

[Malachi]

by stating not all are Israel who are of Israel

Well that is exactly the point, and that is why predestination for salvation is false. Since God chose Israel, it would follow that all Israel would be saved (under your doctrine). And that is also Paul's heart desire. So if you claim that only some were predestined for salvation, that would nullify the election of Israel as a nation. Meaning that the majority of Israel was predestined for damnation even while the nation was chosen to be God's people. Which is utter nonsense.

 

[ivdavid]

Since God chose Israel, it would follow that all Israel would be saved (under your doctrine).

It would follow that all Israel would be saved only IF God had chosen all Israel to be His children of Promise - which is what I've been showing isn't the case as defended by Paul in Rom 9:6-8.

 

[Chopper]

I bolded the part above. That idea is based on one passage of Scripture Eph 1:4. If that interpretation is wrong then that idea has no support in SCripture


The Scriptures that I would present are the passages that speak of predestination. I submit that they are all referring to Israel.

I certainly appreciate your thinking Butch. It causes me to rethink my own position. Personally, I reject the notion that predestination is or was only for Israel. Ephesians clearly details that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, therefore what was good for the Jew is now good for everyone else in Christ. I also believe that predestination continues even today.

Just look at the great men who in modern times have excelled over the masses. Moody, Billy Graham etc. etc. these are the Elect of God.

 

[Chopper]

I see. I wasn't sure, but I can now be more confident that when you say 'freewill', you simply mean that a person inevitably must make a choice to believe or not upon hearing the Gospel. While I agree with you that the Holy Spirit convinces a person to confess the Christ as Lord, and also that faith is a pre-requisite, I don't see the presence of a freewill in the process.

I understand. I guess we just see freewill differently. In my mind it all comes down to a choice. Perhaps this might help my friend. The Elect don't have a choice. God chooses them before they are born. Look at....

Jeremiah 1:4 Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Now, that's a classic example of God choosing the Elect.

As far as choice goes, those who come to Christ thru the General Call, they have a choice. Accept or reject. The Elect only accept....I remember someone years ago questioning me about "being forced to comply with God's plan." I replied, 'If I'm one of those who God forced, I'm glad, look what I've inherited! I wouldn't change anything even if I could."

 

[childeye]

I understand. I guess we just see freewill differently. In my mind it all comes down to a choice. Perhaps this might help my friend. The Elect don't have a choice. God chooses them before they are born. Look at....

Jeremiah 1:4 Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Now, that's a classic example of God choosing the Elect.

As far as choice goes, those who come to Christ thru the General Call, they have a choice. Accept or reject. The Elect only accept....I remember someone years ago questioning me about "being forced to comply with God's plan." I replied, 'If I'm one of those who God forced, I'm glad, look what I've inherited! I wouldn't change anything even if I could."

Thank you for being considerate, or rather God be thanked that I am not implacable. I must concede that 1+1 =2. What I mean, is that as long as there is a lie going about posing as the truth, I must concede that we are bound to make a choice concerning what we will ultimately believe to be true. That is self-evident. What is not self evident, is that the choice is freely made. It is not a voluntary choice, but a choice made out of necessity.

My frustration with freewill theology, is that the Old Testament righteousness by the letter, says to choose the blessing or the curse, so as to choose life or death. A very serious matter indeed. Hence it portrays a freewill, which implies personal responsibility, or blame and praise, blessing and curse, for obedience and disobedience.

Then the New Testament brings forth a contrary "freewill". That is to say, that if we want to live, we now must choose to believe that the Old Testament "freewill" is futile, so as to be set free from the bondage of the Old form of "freewill". We are now preaching to believe contrarily, that mankind cannot choose his way to righteousness. Yet once again, some people claim that personal responsibility must be placed upon the person for that inevitable choice that will either deny the Old Testament portrayal of personal responsibility for obedience and disobedience, or deny the New Testament portrayal of righteousness that is not personally responsible for righteousness, since it comes by Grace through faith.

Consequently, obedience to, and belief in, the Old Testament form of righteousness, becomes disobedience to, or unbelief in, that form of righteousness that comes by grace through faith. Hence through the Gospel, the blind are made seeing and the seeing made blind in a semantic twist that appears to deny freewill altogether, and glorifies God alone. John 9:39. 2 Corinthians 4:7.

But it's not just obedience and disobedience that reverse in meaning. All binary moral/immoral terms reverse meaning as well. Forgiveness in the New Testament is seen as enabling in the Old Testament. Hope, in the New Testament becomes despair in the Old Testament. I don't believe that people are personally responsible for being deceived. And since what we believe to be true will dictate our choices, I don't believe in freewill. That's why I believe in the innocent lamb who suffered upon a cross and forgave his crucifiers with his dying breath. Being forced to submit to Love is a good thing.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't see the presence of a freewill in the process.

It is my perspective that there is something very wrong about "making someone love you." Without free will to choose to submit to God's will, it seems to me that is the condition of the believer. If we are unable to resist His love because we have been programmed to respond positively, then we are just a machine that, when God pushes our button, responds according to the manufacturer's design. That's not love. That's a "Stepford wife."

Also, without free will, there is no basis for guilt. If the sin I do is simply the natural outcome of what a human being is and I have no choice in the matter because of my pre-programmed, inherent total depravity, then neither do I have any guilt for doing what I am "programmed" to do any more than a bulldozer used to destroy buildings is guilty of destroying buildings.

If we have no free will then we are no different than the beasts of the field who act according to instinct and not to choice.

my 2 kopecks

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

You're speculating right there that in my discussion, I am taking verses out of context and am applying them to foreign concepts... -

That's not a speculation. It is my observation.

What if at the end of the discussion........

Now you're asking me to speculate.

And this causes great sorrow in Paul over fellow Israelites being accursed from Christ (Rom 9:2-3) ?

His sorrow is that many had not responded to the Gospel and that many were even hostile to it.

When this is the context provided in the opening verses of this chapter, how does a Rom 9:27 interpretation of a temporal saving from pagan lands on earth fit into this context of Israelites not having salvation unto eternal life in Rom 9:3?

Paul answered that question at verses 30-31.
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law.
If they, by faith that God was faithful to keep His covenant, had continued to strive to keep the Law, they would not have been expelled from the land. Rather than a mere remnant, all Israel would have been secure.

Besides, if Paul was making the point that a remnant has returned to Judea and consequently the Messiah is born in Bethlehem - what is the next point that he wishes to make based on this?

9:27 is preceded by another point.
Rom 9:25-26 (RSV) As indeed he says in Hose'a, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'my beloved.'" And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"
Because there was a remnant, there was a savior.
Because there was a savior, salvation was offered to those who were not "God's people"
The topic doesn't end at 9:33. HE continues: 10:1-4
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.
And who will have faith? Those who were not God's chosen people and a few of(remnant of) God's chosen people, Israel.
But, Paul does not end there.
Rom 11:1a I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!
and
Rom 11:25-27 Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
A remnant is saved from the Babylonian exile and from that remnant Christ is born.
Israel has a temporary hardness of heart concerning the Gospel.
In the end, all Israel will be saved.

why is Paul quoting Isaiah in Rom 9:27 about a temporal saving from pagan lands on earth and then suddenly jumping out of context to salvation being based in faith?

Because temporal salvation is symbolic of and an illustration of eternal salvation. And salvation, whether temporal or eternal is always God's response to faith.
Hab 2:4 (RSV) Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail, but the righteous shall live by his faith.
The temporal salvation of the remnant of Israel is an illustration of those who are eternally saved by faith.
It is also an illustration of the faithfulness and foreknowledge of God in that He knows that they will forsake the covenant but that some will repent and so will not utterly destroy His chosen people who repent and call on Him.
Deu 4:26-31 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you are going over the Jordan to possess; you will not live long upon it, but will be utterly destroyed. And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you. And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men's hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice, for the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not fail you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers which he swore to them.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Election too is on the basis of the grace of God alone and not on the works of men?

Yes. God's relationship with mankind operates 100% through His grace. God is not constrained by any necessity. He doesn't have to do anything. But, He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, (Eph 1:5a RSV)

Is there some significant difference between "of grace" and "by grace" here? I was merely quoting the KJV

Ah! Then you were using a language that is no longer spoken (Late Middle English) which resulted in the use of "of Grace" which is rather awkward in modern English. The "KJ English" is prone to suggesting odd understandings because we automatically apply our modern English understanding to it.

and the greek grammar too supports it.

But we do not speak Koine Greek and we are reading a translation of it. We understand better using a translation in a language we speak (Modern English) rather than one we do not speak. (Late Middle English.)

God's election being based on His grace and not man's works

That does not suggest that God might "elect" the rebellious and apostate.
Salvation is based on faith and faith without works is dead. No one will be save through dead faith.

Couldn't the God who can make descendants from stones, cause a lineage line through Esau leading to Jesus if He had so willed?

You're asking for speculation. God can do anything. But, would God do anything?
God knew who Jacob's descendants would be and who Esau's would be. He elected Jacob and his descendants.

And if God was constrained by the fact that only Jacob would produce that lineage,...

God isn't constrained by anything.
But, if God bet on a horse race, do you think He'd bet on a horse He knew was a looser?

We both agree on that. Where we differ is on holding how man calls on the name of the Lord - does he do it after being regenerated first or not.

The teaching of the Church has been from the beginning that regeneration (being born again) was accomplished through baptism according to Ro 6:3-4. Therefore, regeneration necessarily comes after calling on the name of the Lord.

the doctrine of total inability of the flesh.

Total Depravity (the "T" in "TULIP") is an invention of John Calvin. It is a deviation from the teaching of the ancient Church. His doctrine was deemed heresy by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. I see no reason to question their conclusions.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Well, we do know the "all" in that verse doesn't mean every single human that ever was or will be...

Who changed the meaning of the word "all" so that it now means "not all"?