Lots of people don't get saved. Lots of people don't get healed.So can we assume, as some here do, that it must not be God's will to save or heal them?Is not the scripture clear that if we lay hands on the sick, they SHALL recover? If that means (as some take it), He didn't get healed in this life, but now that he has died, he is completely healed, then can we also claim that, He didn't get saved in this life, but now that he has died, he is saved?Do we hold healing in a different light than salvation...perhaps because healing is kind of a binary situation--you either ARE or ARE NOT healed. But when it comes to salvation, we can kind of fudge a little and say, Well, they still live like the devil, but the Lord is working on them?I am HONESTLY not trying to provoke a heated argument (which is often my wont, alas!), but to simply ask us to consider why we would suppose that it is ALWAYS God's will to save...but (apparently) not always God's will to heal.When someone comes to our church and prays in the altar but doesn't really change, etc., is that not somewhat tantamount to someone getting prayer for healing, but nothing really changing? If so, then, just as many of us claim that it must not have been God's will to heal that person, can we also state that it must not have been God's will to save the other guy?Please, no slap downs or cutting. I seriously want to know how we can deal with this seeming contrast in a thoughtful, reasonable, and Biblical manner.