There is a popular claim among human beings to want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is logical to assume that deception, falsehood, and ignorance are not what people desire, but rather honesty, reality, and truth. However, although logical, is this assumption actually accurate? Is it even true that people honestly want to know the truth? What if the truth hurts? There is a reason, after all, for the popularity of the expression, “You can’t handle the truth!” Undoubtedly, when dealing with the problem of pain, the truth of the matter may very well be…well, painful. However, as will be examined, it is only through pain that one can even experience true comfort. What’s more, it is only through truth that true comfort is even accessible. As C.S. Lewis has noted, “Comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get neither comfort nor truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.” Despair certainly is the end that most (hopefully all) humans are trying to avoid. Therefore, to navigate the problem of pain with any hope of finding “comfort in the end,” one must first face the truth—the hard truth (the only truth), and that is God’s truth. Only then, after examining the truth (which will be the first proposal)—and if one is able to handle the truth—can one find comfort in what God’s truth has to say about the problem of pain (the second proposal).
​So, building off of the (gracious) assumption that human beings do not want to be deceived, but want to know the truth concerning the problem of pain and evil, it seems appropriate to address what the greatest “problem” appears to be among skeptics; and this, it seems, revolves around the apparent contradiction that God is said to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely morally good…yet He allows pain, suffering, and evil to exist. As John Mackie puts it plainly: “In its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true, the third would be false. But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions.” He claims, then, that the theologian needs to adhere, yet cannot consistently adhere to all three parts.
​Well first, it must be stated that with all of the irrelevant, inconsistent, or illogical arguments against the theologians’ proposal of evil, this one at least has grounds for argumentation, as it does, at first glance, point out an apparent contradiction. But that’s just it. Is the contradiction truly sound, or merely apparent? This is where one must brace himself for the truth, as what is known as The Free Will Defense vindicates the actual consistency of what is mistaken for a contradiction. To be sure, the aim of the Free Will Defender is to show that God’s attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and complete moral goodness are indeed consistent with the fact that evil exists. The obvious attacks from skeptics, then, include, as David Hume asserts, “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” However, there are critical assumptions being made in these statements that must be addressed, namely, that “a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can,” and that “there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.” Little time needs to be spent addressing the first (and to be sure, false) assumption, as it has little if any grounds to even be claimed. The second, however, is, in fact, true. The question is, is it necessarily true? (Yes, there is a difference!) As Platinga explains, “There are no nonlogical limits to what an omnipotent being can do, but […] not even an omnipotent being can bring about logically impossible states of affairs or cause necessarily false propositions to be true.” A common analogy of this idea is claiming that God can make a square circle. This, obviously, is logically impossible. But to adhere to that God cannot perform this illogical act takes nothing away from His omnipotence.
​The case in point, is stressing this clarification, is to refute the skeptic’s claim that if God is omnipotent then it follows that He could’ve created any possible world. And, assuming that there are possible worlds that allow moral good but not moral evil (this is the critical mistake), then a false premise is presented that God could have actualized any world He pleased, namely, this “possible” world containing moral good but not evil. But that’s just it—this is a false premise. For how can anything be labeled “moral” without a moral being making a certain choice? And how can a person make any choice without being free to do so? This is where two critical propositions are presented in the Free Will Defense: 1.) There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being cannot actualize. 2.) A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world. Therefore the possibility stands that it is not within God’s power (yet diminishes nothing from His omnipotence) to create a world containing moral good without containing moral evil. To this end one may then wonder, Then why create free creatures at all? Is the price for creating a world in which they can produce moral good worth creating one in which they also produce moral evil? Well, the short answer for sure, would be, yes. As Platinga asserts, “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.” Furthermore, Platinga articulately summarizes the Free Will Defense upon which, if accepted, one can finally step forward into finding comfort in what is being stated:
“Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence [as explained earlier] nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.”
So there it is—the hard truth! Or perhaps, more appropriately, the hard wake-up call…to the reality that there is no contradiction to an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-good God allowing evil. Was it embraced? If so, much comfort can now be found in examining the purposes of evil—both speculative as well as biblical.
​It was C.S. Lewis who prompted the proposal at the beginning of this venture with his assertion that truth must be sought if any hope of comfort is to be found. Well, the truth was sought, and comfort is ready to be welcomed with open arms. And it is C. S. Lewis, again, who sparks a flame to light the way toward where this comfort may be found…and it is surely not anywhere in this world: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” Three little words should be kept hidden in the heart as one navigates through the pains and sufferings of this world: Not home yet. C.S. Lewis, although drawing on unsatisfied desires, makes a prominent point that can (and should) be remembered during painful times (really, during all times), namely, that human beings were not created to live in such a fallen world, but were made to live in unbroken fellowship with God in His presence. Being separated from God, then, creates all kinds of turmoil and trouble. And this, actually, is where the true problem of pain comes to light: The Fall of man, and sin entering into the world.

Now, it can be argued that the true origin of sin began even further back with Satan, but this is beside the point. The emphasis is that because sin entered the world—depraving man of innate goodness and inclining him toward evil—well, evil, then, is inevitable; including pain, suffering, and sorrow. C.S. Lewis notes, “The possibility of pain is inherent in the very existence of a world where souls can meet. When souls become wicked, they will certainly use this possibility to hurt one another; and this, perhaps, accounts for four-fifths of the sufferings of men.” More abruptly, he goes on to say, “Man, as a species, spoiled himself. And that good, to us in our present state, must therefore mean primarily remedial or corrective good.” Now, one may be wondering, Where is the comfort in all of this? Much comfort is to be taken! The idea that God would even take the time and the measures to correct humans (i.e. to discipline them…and discipline, of course, is usually painful) brings much hope that restoration is on the way! And not just for human beings, but restoration for the earth that God created as well. This current broken world—with its diseases, decay, and disasters—will, too, one day be redeemed: “For creation was subjected to futility […] but the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” What hope! What comfort can be taken in knowing that the brokenness of this world will one day be redeemed by Christ, and the threats and effects of sin will no longer be present. It must always be taken to heart and remembered, therefore: followers of Christ simply aren’t home yet.
​(It should be noted that a transition has obviously been made toward whom is being addressed. It has been assumed that the previous proofs have been accepted and thus the following comforts may apply.)
​It is with eyes now toward heaven that one begins to see clearly the reality of what is taking place around him. Without clear vision, pain and suffering cannot be taken for what they’re worth. Augustine himself aims the problem of pain toward human failure to perceive the grand reality of what is taking place in (and outside of) the world. He suggests that the problem that plagues man’s condition is not that he is trapped in the visible world; but rather, it is a more subtle problem of perception—that man is prone to view things materialistically and hence unaware that the sensible world is just a tiny portion of what is real. Hence, believers are exhorted to “set [their] minds on things above,” for, as Augustine asserts, the experiences of this world will not be able to be perceived nor handled appropriately without acknowledging the divine and grand scheme of things.
​Now, even when recognizing the grander scale of things, pain is still painful, and so it is helpful to realize also the benefits that may come from certain sufferings, as well as the intentional good that is being produced amidst many sufferings. C.S. Lewis creatively illustrates how God is in the process of remaking His people, and how this process must involve painful discipline. He depicts the familiar scenario in which a person may be happily going along his merry way, little mindful of his need for God or of the temporary reality of this life, when he is suddenly hit with a threatening disease or some other type of devastating news. Placing himself hypothetically in this person’s position, Lewis writes, “At first I am overwhelmed, and all my little happinesses look like broken toys. Then, slowly and reluctantly, I try to bring myself into the frame of mind that I should be in at all times. I remind myself that all these toys were never intended to possess my heart, and that my good is in another world and my only real treasure is Christ.” He then goes on to confess that more than likely, once the threat passes, he will slowly tend to move back into his happy state of autonomy—self-dependent and self-satisfied. And this, he concludes, is why “tribulations cannot cease until God either sees us remade or sees that our remaking is now hopeless.” However, the fact of the matter is, it is not even possible for man to be truly “self-satisfied,” as he was created to be satisfied only in God. Lewis, again, articulates this wonderfully: “It is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way. God cannot give us a happiness apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.” Misplacing one’s happiness in any source apart from God, then—a common fault among humanity—inevitably causes pain and sorrow. But this doesn’t leave man in despair, for God offers Himself to His people. More accurately, He assures His people will receive Him, and much comfort is to be had in this assurance.
​Finally, if apprehensive new converts are still unsatisfied with the comfort that can be found amidst the problem of pain, one last offer will be addressed. Truly, this may be the most valuable of them all—God cares deeply for every suffering endured by His children. And not only does He care, but He sympathizes with their sufferings, as He Himself endured tremendous pains and sufferings—multiplied a hundred times more than any human being could ever experience. Isaiah 53:3 reminds believers that “He was despised and rejected—a Man of sorrows, acquainted with bitterest grief,” and that He was tempted in all ways relatable to humans, being able to “sympathize with [their] weaknesses.” And these don’t even touch the magnitude of what He experienced on the cross—enduring the wrath of God poured out upon Him to atone for the sins of His people—being separated in those moments from His very Father. And the point of this being emphasized here is…He suffered and endured all of this for a purpose. He endured the cross and despised the shame “for the joy that was set before Him,” namely, for the purpose of reconciling His people to Himself, with the knowledge of a coming redemption of His creation. Therefore, if such extreme measures were taken for the very purpose of redeeming His people (all done out of sheer grace)—which required unimaginable pain and suffering—then surely immeasurable hope is to be had in the sufferings that must be endured here on this earth. Great purpose can be trusted to lie within many of man’s pains and sorrows. And for the ones in which no purpose appears to be evident, then comfort is then to be found in those three little words…not home yet. It is with this attitude that one can truly say along with Paul, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that will be revealed to us.” And it will be in that day, at last, that this present magnified problem of pain will diminish in the light of His glory and grace.
​So it is true that comfort is found in the end. But only by way of the Truth.