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


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

Same fallacy of affirming the consequent.


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


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.

Our Response in its Simplest Form.

I) This is what the limited satisfaction polemic is attempting to argue to:

Set 1:

All died-for are prayed-for.


All died-for will be in-covenant.

However, all that Scripture will warrant are these two sets of premises:

Set 2:

All prayed-for are died-for.


All in-Covenant are died-for.4

Any attempt to deduce the first set of premises from the second set, can only come by way of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The biblical data will only sustain the second pair of premises.

Every verse which limited satisfaction advocates adduce to prove set 1, only proves one or both premises from set 2. For example, whenever Hebrews speaks of Christ praying as priest for someone, it regards believers. In the biblical instances there is a bi-conditional present: the verses explicitly presuppose believers, and they implicitly assume the subjects are also died-for (which is a given for all parties I would think).

IIa) So to be "prayed-for" in Hebrews, both conditions must be present: a) died-for and b) belief.

That is why it is invalid when they affirm the consequent: “All died-for are prayed-for.”

That, itself, does not accurately represent the biblical data. We can correctly word it this way:

All prayed-for are died-for and believing

Therefore it is false to infer the consequent, “Therefore, all died-for are prayed-for.” For example:

All prayed-for are died-for and believing
Therefore, all died-for are prayed-for

While the first premise is true, the conclusion is false because to be prayed-for, the bi-conditional must be present for the conclusion to hold good. In short, to be prayed-for, one must both be died-for and believe. Without both conditions being present, one will not be prayed-for, so it is incorrect to assert simply, that all died-for will be prayed-for.

IIb) This holds good for the parallel "in-covenant, died-for" argument.

To be “in-covenant” in Hebrews, biblically, both conditions must be present: a) died-for and b) belief.

Therefore, the following conclusion is false:

All in-covenant are believers and died-for.
Therefore, all died-for are/will be in covenant.

Now we can see why the conclusion is fallacious, because of the necessity of the bi-conditional, believing and died-for. The consequent can only be true if, and only if, the bi-conditional holds good.

Possible Counter-Response:

The only possible counter-defense is to insert some extra premises like "all died-for will be given saving faith," etc etc. Then, and only then, could one begin validate the above Modus Tollens argument. Or one may try to claim that all the died-for equals all the prayed-for.

But again, these possible counters have no warrant in Scripture, and you have biblical counter-factuals, like 2 Peter 2:1, Heb 10:29, and if you like 1 Cor 8:11-12 (which is actually fairly bullet-proof given the force of apollumi). These verses prove that some died-for are yet not prayed-for.

With their secondary defenses aside, as soon as one restricts his or her thinking to what Scripture actually says and warrants, the above arguments for limited satisfaction should be seen as fallacious on their own heads.

1 In this short essay, prayed-for refers specifically to the effectual high priestly prayer of Christ.

2A good example of this would be: If a man is dead he is not breathing. Therefore, if a man is not breathing, he is dead. That would be a false inference because the man may be holding his breath.

3The argument must tacitly assume a secondary claim that Christ’s satisfaction is properly comparable to a pecuniary satisfaction which purchases things, etc.

4Or more fully, All in-Covenant are died-for and believers.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 28th, 2013 at 4:51 pm and is filed under Short Essays, Notes, and Comments. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed at this time.