Well, this continues for several more years. She reads the Bible daily, is active at her community, attends Bible studies and is becoming more Christ-like. To all people, especially herself, Pat is DEFINITELY of the elect. She volunteers to be a missionary in a foreign country. She [has a terrible experience, witnessing death and disease, she falls away, and effectively turns her back on God.]
My question to you addresses the failure of your theology. During those five years of Christianity, Pat was considered by ALL to be of the elect. She showed the fruit of being elect. She had a firm belief in the Lord, was knowledgeable about Scriptures, and gave of herself to others. (bolded emphasis added)
Before I answer, I just want to say that I am not answering on behalf of all Protestants. As Harley and Stripes have both pointed out, my view and Harley's are in the minority among Protestants.
First, as to the sections I bolded, we would never, ever, say that. We might "think" it, as you do of yourself, but we would never presume about another person. There is no scripture I am aware of that gives us assurance about other people.
Second, I have never met, or even heard of, someone like Pat before. I have heard of people who appeared like Pat, but that is very different. If you are presuming for the sake of your hypo that she really DID "walk strongly in the Lord", did actually grow in her sanctification, read the Bible in earnest daily, really did become more Christ-like, showed true fruit, had a firm belief in the Lord, etc., then I would say that Pat is an impossibility. Who on earth could possibly know if any of those things you listed was really, actually true of Pat other than herself? No one. Remember my Billy Graham story? He called out to pastors to come forward at the invitation. He knew that outward appearances had nothing necessarily to do with the true inward heart. The Pat of your hypo doesn't really exist.
It was clear that God HAD TO BE WORKING IN HER! And here is the crux of the matter : WHAT CAUSED PAT TO CHANGE SO MUCH DURING THOSE FIVE YEARS?
It could only be clear to you as the author of the hypo. Lost people do deeds we normally would consider "good" all the time. But it is not righteousness to them. Lost people who are drug addicts go into rehab, get straight, and are reunited with their families. They undergo a huge change. Good for them! Really. But it does not count towards heaven in God's eyes. They are still lost. The same happens on the opposite side of the tracks.
"She never was saved to begin with" is plain dishonest and shows the fallacy of claiming to BE of the elect forever. All of our conversation returns to this presumption. All Scripture you give me. It is meant for the elect - however, we cannot KNOW we will be elect until judgment day.
It is not dishonest, it is what the scripture says. As I said, the Pat of your hypo does not exist. In the real world you cannot assume all those qualities about her as another person. You see evidence, just as you do within yourself, but even with yourself, you are unsure. We say we can be sure about ourselves, but not other people. AND, if all the scripture you were given is only for the elect, and no one can know if he is of the elect until after death, then what use is any of it to anyone TODAY? If we can snatch ourselves out of God's hands, then what use is it to try to live up to any standards, if, as you say, it could all be gone in a heartbeat 5 years down the road, if there is no reason to have confidence?
I would also like to address another of your faulty religious beliefs that contradict itself:
You wrote : "I'm not sure what part of my paragraph you find contradictory. ... we are saved by grace through faith alone. ... no one on my side believes that we enter heaven without love."
Well, I don't understand how I can make this any clearer to you, but you contradict yourself... Either you are saved by faith alone, or you are saved by faith WITH love. If you have faith ALONE, then you don't have love. One can have faith WITHOUT love. Read James 2, for example, and see the character who has faith without love.
Sorry, no contradiction here. :) Why do you reject the truth that real faith comes with real love for God? James 2 refers to a false faith. But, I suppose you need that passage to separate faith from love so that the love can only come from within us, independently of God. James 2 is talking about all the people who were never saved to begin with. It is a claimed and false faith. My view of God is one who provides fully for His children. Your view of God appears to be of one who gives His children half a meal, and then tells them to go out and scrounge for the rest. :)
"Real" faith? Does the Scripture define the difference between "real" faith and "unreal" faith? If I was to broaden my definition of faith to include love, hope, repentance, conversion, and perseverance - well, then I guess I am saved by "faith" alone. However, faith does not include all of these other attributes. They are distinguished from each other in Scripture! Thus, we are NOT saved by faith ALONE. We are saved with combinations of all of the above.
"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" James 2:14
"if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:2
As you can see, a faith that lacks works of love is pointless. Notice how the Bible DISTINGUISHES between faith and love. One CAN have faith, "real" faith, without love. REAL faith to move mountains! Does it get anymore real than that??? However, this is not a question of "real" faith, but adding love (from God) to our faith (from God). James and Paul agree, but defining the opposing sides of the same coin.
Faith without works is dead. James.
Works without faith is dead. Paul.
If you don't have faith AND works (of love), then you are dead. Thus, faith ALONE, without love, doesn't save anyone.
Regards