Pastoral Considerations

“Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.” --- Romans 12:15 (KJV)

Theology matters. How we read Isaiah 53:5 shapes how we pray, how we counsel, how we grieve, and how we hope. But there is a place where all three views examined in this chapter must kneel together — at the bedside of a suffering brother or sister in Christ. This section addresses the pastoral realities that cut across every theological position, because the person in the hospital bed is not a test case for doctrine. They are a human being, made in the image of God, loved by Christ, and in need of the church’s care.

The Damage of Telling Sick Believers They Lack Faith

This is the hardest and most necessary critique of the healing-in-the-atonement view’s pastoral application. It must be stated directly, because lives are at stake.

What It Looks Like

A woman has been diagnosed with cancer. She belongs to a church that teaches healing is in the atonement. She prays. The church prays. The elders anoint her with oil. She confesses healing Scriptures. She believes with all her heart. And the cancer does not go away.

Then comes the question — sometimes spoken, sometimes merely implied: “Is there unconfessed sin in your life? Have you truly believed? Are you standing on God’s Word with enough faith?”

A child is born with a disability. The parents are told that if they had enough faith, their child would be whole. They are encouraged to “claim” healing, to refuse to acknowledge the diagnosis, to speak the word of faith over their child. When the disability persists, the implication is clear: Something is wrong with your faith.

A man is dying. He has prayed every prayer, claimed every promise, rebuked every spirit. His family has surrounded him with faith-filled declarations. And he is still dying. In his final weeks, he is tormented not only by disease but by the conviction that his death is his own fault — that if he had believed more, confessed better, or prayed harder, he would have been healed.

The Spiritual Harm

The damage is not merely emotional. It is spiritual. When a sick believer is told — directly or by implication — that their suffering is caused by their lack of faith, several things happen:

Guilt is compounded on suffering. The believer is already enduring physical pain. Now they carry the additional burden of believing they have failed God.
Isolation from community. The believer may pull away from the church that was supposed to be their source of comfort, because the church has become a source of shame.
Crisis of faith. If the theology says healing is guaranteed and healing does not come, the believer is left with a devastating choice: either the theology is wrong, or they are spiritually deficient. Many choose the latter — and the resulting crisis of faith can be profound.
Distortion of God’s character. The believer comes to see God not as a compassionate Father but as a transactional power who withholds blessing from those who fail to perform correctly. This is a god in the image of the prosperity gospel, not the God who revealed himself in Christ --- the Servant of Isaiah 53 who was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isa 53:3, KJV).

What Must Be Said

The best advocates of healing in the atonement do not do this. The problem is not the theology at its most careful but the theology at its most reckless. A.J. Gordon, A.B. Simpson, and Andrew Murray — the foundational voices of the healing-in-the-atonement tradition — did not teach that the unhealed are faithless. The blame-the-sick approach is a distortion of the tradition, not its essence.

But the distortion is widespread enough, and its consequences devastating enough, that it must be named clearly. Any theology of healing that leaves the sick feeling condemned has failed the most basic test of pastoral care: it has added to suffering rather than relieving it.

The Damage of Telling Sick Believers God Does Not Heal Anymore

If the first critique targets the pastoral failure of the healing-in-the-atonement view, this critique targets the pastoral failure of the cessationist view. It, too, must be stated honestly.

What It Looks Like

A believer is diagnosed with a serious illness. She goes to her pastor, hoping for prayer and the anointing of oil described in James 5. The pastor is kind and compassionate, but his theology tells him that miraculous healing belongs to the apostolic age. He prays for her — but the prayer is framed entirely in terms of God’s sovereignty and the hope of heaven.

The message the believer receives — whether the pastor intends it or not — is: God could heal you, but He probably won’t. Don’t get your hopes up. Focus on the life to come.

The Spiritual Harm

Diminished hope. The believer is left without a robust hope for this-life healing. The theology technically allows for God to heal, but the functional expectation is that He will not. This can produce a quiet resignation that masquerades as trust but is actually despair dressed in theological clothing.
A God who seems distant. When healing is relegated to the past — to the apostolic age — the God of the present can seem less active, less involved, less concerned with the body. The believer may come to feel that God cares about their soul but not about their suffering.
The absence of prayer. In some cessationist churches, prayer for healing is perfunctory or absent altogether. The sick are visited, comforted, and cared for practically — but they are not prayed over with the expectation that God might actually heal them. James 5:14—16 becomes a historical curiosity rather than a living practice.

What Must Be Said

The best cessationist pastors do not say “God doesn’t heal.” They say, “God can heal, but healing is not a guaranteed provision of the atonement. We pray and trust His sovereignty.” The nuance matters. The best cessationist pastoral care is genuinely compassionate, deeply present, and attentive to the needs of the sick.

But when the nuance is lost — when the functional message becomes “miracles were for then, not now” — the pastoral damage is real. A theology that cannot pray for healing with genuine hope has created a different kind of wound: not the wound of false guilt, but the wound of extinguished hope.

What All Traditions Can Agree On

Despite their differences, the three views examined in this chapter share substantial common ground. The following convictions are not debated between traditions — they are affirmed by all.

God Is Compassionate Toward the Suffering

“The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” --- Psalm 34:18 (KJV)

The God of Scripture is not indifferent to pain. He draws near to the suffering. He hears the cry of the sick. Whatever theological framework a believer holds, this truth is foundational: God’s heart is moved by human suffering.

Prayer for the Sick Is Biblical and Commanded

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up.” --- James 5:14—15 (KJV)

This instruction is not addressed to one theological tradition. It is addressed to the church. Whatever position one holds on healing in the atonement, the command to pray for the sick stands. The manner and expectation of the prayer may differ between traditions, but the practice itself is non-negotiable.

Medical Care Is a Gift of God’s Common Grace

God has given humanity the capacity to understand the body, to develop treatments, and to alleviate suffering through medicine. Seeking medical care is not a failure of faith — it is an exercise of the wisdom God has provided. The Bible itself affirms the use of physical remedies (Isa 38:21; 1 Tim 5:23; Luke 10:34). No responsible theology of healing, from any tradition, opposes medical care.

Suffering Is Not Evidence of Sin or Lack of Faith

“And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” --- John 9:2—3 (KJV)

Jesus explicitly rejected the equation of suffering with personal sin. The man was not blind because of his sin or his parents’ sin. The assumption that sickness is always the result of spiritual failure is not merely pastorally harmful — it is theologically incorrect, contradicted by Christ Himself.

The Ultimate Healing Is Guaranteed at the Resurrection

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” --- Revelation 21:4 (KJV)

Every tradition affirms this hope. Whether one is Pentecostal, Reformed, or somewhere in between, the promise of Revelation 21:4 stands: the day is coming when there will be no more disease, no more pain, no more death. The body will be redeemed. The creation will be restored. Every tear will be wiped away by the hand of God.

For the believer who is not healed in this life, this is not a consolation prize. It is the main event. It is the certain, unshakable hope toward which all of redemption is moving.

The Community’s Role

“Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.” --- Romans 12:15 (KJV)

The church is not called to have all the answers. It is called to be present. When a brother or sister suffers, the community is called to:

Be present. Physical presence matters. Sit with the sick. Visit the hospital. Show up.
Pray. Not as a formality, but as a genuine act of faith and love.
Provide practical help. Meals, childcare, transportation, financial assistance — these are not substitutes for prayer; they are expressions of it.
Weep. Sometimes the most Christ-like response is not an explanation but a tear. The theology can wait. The grief cannot.

The Fruit Test

“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.” --- Matthew 7:16—17 (KJV)

Jesus gave His followers a test for discerning truth: look at the fruit. This test applies not only to prophets and teachers but to theological positions and their pastoral applications.

What Fruit Does Each View Produce?

This is not asking which view is true — that is an exegetical question addressed in Chapter 1. It is asking a different question: When each view is actually lived out in real churches with real people, what fruit does it produce?

The healing-in-the-atonement view, at its best, produces:

Bold, expectant faith
A gospel that addresses the whole person
Vibrant, growing churches powered by the testimony of God’s power
Communities that take prayer for the sick seriously

The healing-in-the-atonement view, at its worst, produces:

Guilt and shame for the unhealed
Spiritual manipulation by leaders who claim authority to heal
Rejection of medical care
A transactional relationship with God

The spiritual-healing-only view, at its best, produces:

Freedom from false guilt for the sick
A robust, meaningful theology of suffering
Trust in God’s sovereignty even in darkness
A high view of Scripture and theological precision

The spiritual-healing-only view, at its worst, produces:

Diminished hope for this-life healing
Prayer for the sick that expects nothing
A practical atheism regarding God’s present activity
A faith that is intellectually rigorous but experientially thin

The already/not yet view, at its best, produces:

Both expectation and humility in prayer
Pastoral care that neither blames nor resigns
Theological coherence that holds the full biblical witness together
Communities where faith and sovereignty are held in tension

The already/not yet view, at its worst, produces:

Theological ambiguity that frustrates those who want clear answers
Functional cessationism disguised as nuance
A position so balanced it never actually acts in faith
An academic framework that sounds good in a classroom but falters in a hospital room

The Honest Conclusion

Every view, when applied with love, wisdom, and humility, produces good fruit. Every view, when applied with arrogance, rigidity, or insensitivity, produces harm. The fruit test does not resolve the theological question. But it does expose how each position functions when it meets real human suffering — and it invites every tradition to examine its own pastoral practice with sober honesty.

Practical Guidelines for Pastoral Care Across Traditions

Whatever theological position a pastor, elder, or believer holds, the following guidelines apply universally.

1. Always Pray for the Sick

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” --- James 5:14 (KJV)

This is a command, not a suggestion. It is addressed to the church without qualification. Pray for the sick. Pray with sincerity. Pray with faith. Pray with love. Whether you expect a miracle or trust God’s sovereignty, pray.

2. Never Blame the Sick for Their Sickness

This guideline is absolute. No believer should ever hear from the church that their illness is caused by insufficient faith, unconfessed sin, or spiritual failure. Jesus Himself rejected this equation (John 9:2—3). To impose it on the suffering is to contradict Christ.

3. Affirm Medical Care as Consistent with Faith

There is no conflict between praying for healing and seeking medical treatment. God works through means — through doctors, medications, surgeries, and therapies — as readily as He works through miraculous intervention. To affirm one is not to deny the other.

4. Hold Theological Convictions with Humility

This is a question on which faithful, Bible-believing, Christ-loving Christians disagree. The disagreement is not between the faithful and the faithless. It is between sincere interpreters of the same Scripture, wrestling with the same difficult texts, and arriving at different conclusions.

Humility does not require abandoning conviction. It requires holding conviction without contempt for those who hold a different one.

5. Focus on Presence, Not Answers

“Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.” --- Romans 12:15 (KJV)

Sometimes the most Christ-like response to suffering is not a theological explanation. It is presence. It is sitting in silence with the one who hurts. It is weeping alongside the one who weeps. It is the ministry of being there — without agenda, without correction, without a sermon.

The theology matters. But in the acute moment of suffering, the person matters more.

6. Remember That the Person Matters More Than the Theology

The sick believer in front of you is not a test case for your doctrine. They are a human being created in the image of God, loved by Christ, and entrusted to your care. They do not need to hear why your theological position is correct. They need to know they are not alone. They need to know they are loved. They need to know that God has not abandoned them.

Let love be the first word. Let theology be the servant of love, not its master.

7. Let Love, Not Correctness, Be the First Word

“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” --- 1 Corinthians 13:13 (KJV)

In every tradition, in every theological framework, love is supreme. The one who prays for healing with bold faith must do so in love. The one who trusts God’s sovereignty in suffering must do so in love. The one who holds the already/not yet tension must do so in love. Without love, every theology — however correct — is “as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal” (1 Cor 13:1, KJV).

A Word to the Reader

This study has examined the question of physical healing in the atonement from every angle the SCAR framework provides: Scripture, Christocentrism, Antiquity, and Reality. The evidence has been presented honestly. The arguments have been given their strongest form. The challenges have been stated without evasion.

Wherever you land on this question, remember this: the person who disagrees with you is not your enemy. They are your brother or sister in Christ, wrestling with the same Scriptures, the same God, and the same mystery of suffering and grace. They have studied the same passages you have studied. They have prayed the same prayers you have prayed. They have sat at the same bedsides you have sat at. And they have arrived at a different conclusion — not because they are unfaithful, but because the question is genuinely difficult and the evidence genuinely complex.

“And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” --- 1 Peter 4:8 (KJV)

Love covers this disagreement. Not the love that ignores truth — the Scriptures matter, and the question matters. But the love that refuses to let a theological disagreement become an occasion for division, contempt, or broken fellowship. The love that says, “I believe differently than you do, and I love you, and I will sit with you when you are suffering, and I will pray for you with everything I have.”

That is the love of Christ. And it is the final word.

Cross-References

Healing Is in the Atonement View — The view whose pastoral strengths and challenges are addressed in this section
Spiritual Healing Only View — The view whose pastoral strengths and challenges are addressed in this section
Already / Not Yet View — The view whose pastoral strengths and challenges are addressed in this section
Chapter 1: Related Passages — James 5:14—16, 2 Corinthians 12:7—10, John 9:1—3, and other texts that inform pastoral care
Chapter 4 Overview — The introduction to the Reality pillar and the framework for this chapter