I don’t see where this addresses the problem in Calvinism of salvation by election instead of by grace through faith.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (and note that Ephesians starts by discussing predestination, so this is in that context). Faith and grace are the gifts of God to the (elected) believer.
That is because the question as posed is a false dichotomy, gently refuted in the above article by such as;
James White sums up the correct position well when he says: “Reformed Christians believe that men believe and choose. It is the order of events that is in dispute. Every Christian has chosen Christ, believed in Christ, embraced Christ, and even more, continues to do so. The question is not ‘must a person believe,’ but can a person believe while a slave to sin? Further, whose decision comes first: the decision of God to free the enslaved, dead sinner and give him the ability to believe, or the free-choice decision of the sinner that then makes him or her one of the elect?”
to which I will add referral to Hebrews 12:2, in which we are taught Jesus himself by his own choice (election) is the author and finisher of our faith.
There is no real argument amongst various camp concerning where grace comes from. Both required elements, grace and faith, as are posed to be RCC teaching "saved by grace through faith" can be seen to be given unto us freely by God's own choice ... by His own hand. Again, by election.
As Christ spoke "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” John 6:44
Not by [our] works lest any man should boast, with the Calvinist position seeming to me be, that without the two required elements, response on our part not be possible, making some of those last words of Christ "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" ever yet more meaningful.
That said, I'll now hunker down and wait for the "faith without works is dead" scripture grenade likely to be hurled by somebody around here (though not necessarily by you) itself presented as often as not much as the question posed which I'm responding to was, as some form of false dichotomy, in that it presents incomplete doctrinal positions as being the complete teachings...the easier & better to dismiss them by, I suppose.
Presenting the Reformer/RCC differences in regards to salvation, with RCC position here being placed as "grace through faith" neglects to mention that grace itself, in form of forgiveness of sins in Calvin's time it can't be disputed, were claimed by the RCC to be accessible to the many only through submission to the Catholic priesthood- -- and the Roman branch had wavering opinions if grace thus forgiveness be able to flow through any other "Catholic" branch, or at least *some* of the others laying similar claims to apostolic succession.
As far as the Roman branch was concerned, if they or those in "communion" with the Roman pontiff didn't absolve a human being of their sins, then those sins were retained by that human being, resulting in those sins not forgiven by God Himself. This sets up the priesthood as sole font and intermediary of grace itself. Which is the other end of the false dichotomy as posed in form of question, for it clips off too much important information on both sides of the usage of "instead of".
Although today there has been an escape clause of sorts attached in these latter years (Vatican II?) claiming all churches anywhere and everywhere are under authority of the Roman pontiff, it comes across as a legal fiction written as much for reason of primarily not being able to back away from historic & overblown claims towards the extent of their authority, in face of evidence to the contrary, and lack of ability to back those claims up...even as they steadily lose influence on their home turf. Europeans increasingly turn their backs upon them, sadly enough turning their backs also towards the very idea of Christ being sent as our one & only true hope, all of which we see on these pages blamed much upon Luther and the Reformers... As if sin itself was invented by the Reformers. Or that there not have been significant sins within RCC congregations from top to bottom over the centuries of it's existence, either... Or corruptions which much led to bringing about the Reformation as reaction to the frequently unholy mix of less than Christlike authority which was presented to be the way the Lord intended things to be, etc.
Having myself found some significant measures of grace far from being in prostrating submission to the church of Rome, along with it's various & extensive far reaching claims to it's own authority, it becomes plain enough to me that the Lord thinks little of simply bypassing those restrictions & qualifications (as they are frequently sought to be applied by some) towards how He Himself dispenses His own grace.
At risk of taking out-of-context some of what Spurgeon was attributed to have written or said, from the above article;
No hard feelings intended. For otherwise much of the differences between methodologies of dealing with sin, when effective, appear to me to boil down to differences of descriptive phraseology (when not dependent upon a priest's direct bestowal or granting of absolution) along with attendant misunderstandings and misrepresentations on both sides of this portion of debate with perhaps "election" good enough of a representative sample.