The assertion that all died-for are all prayed-for relies upon the conflation of some fallacious and unsound arguments. Such as:

1) All prayed-for¹ are died-for.
Therefore, all died-for are prayed-for.

The conclusion commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.²

Or,

2) All in-covenant are died-for.
Therefore all died-for are(/will be) in covenant

Same fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Or,

3) All died-for will be prayed-for.
Therefore, if a man is not prayed-for, he was not died-for.

A Modus Tollens argument, formally valid but not sound. There is no evidence that all died-for will infallibly be prayed-for. This just begs the question at this point.³

Or,

4) All died-for will be in-covenant
Therefore, if a man will not be in-covenant, he was not died-for.

Another Modus Tollens argument, formally valid but not sound. There is no evidence that all died-for will infallibly be brought into the covenant. This just once again begs the question at this point.

Read the rest of this entry »