Alma now explains why repentance unavoidably and necessarily requires “punishment.” Nehors recognized no punishment because salvation was, in their theology, universal (Alma 1:4). Such punishment is part of the plan of mercy, which ironically might well be the Nehorite argument about why it would be unnecessary. That argument might run: “If God were merciful, then he wouldn’t want to punish us.” Alma carefully demonstrates the flaw in that argument: It does not account for Yahweh’s justice and the need to balance justice and mercy. That tension is resolved by the Messiah’s atonement, a resolution that preserves punishment but only for those who do not repent. Thus, Yahweh does not inflict the punishment; human beings choose it by their voluntary actions in refusing the atonement.
Alma links repentance to punishment through a logical progression: First, repentance presupposes sin. Unless there is something to repent of, repentance is both impossible and unnecessary. Repentance is a turning away from anything that estranges us from Yahweh. We cannot turn from something that does not exist. (See “Excursus: The Principle of Repentance,” following 3 Nephi 18.)
Second, sin presupposes the existence of law. Alma defines sin as “breaking” or violating commandments, a concept derived directly from the law of Moses. The Mosaic law specified what one must do; violating those instructions was a sin. This is why Romans 5:13 acknowledges: “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”
For Paul, sin and law (in this case, Mosaic law) are directly related; a human being is not guilty of sin if no law forbids or requires a certain behavior. This important concept begins to identify the “plan of happiness.” Even requirements that appear least merciful are intimately related to the plan of happiness.
Third, breaking the law requires punishment. Alma suggests that a law that does not specify a “punishment” for its breach is not really a law. If a parent tells a child, “Don’t touch that book,” he or she is giving a command, but it does not have the status of a law, by Alma’s definition. In contrast, in “Do not steal, because if you do you will be placed in jail,” the affixing of the penalty attached to its breach gives it the status of a law.
Alma’s logical development of relationship between punishment and the plan of happiness is a specific answer to one of Corianton’s doctrinal misunderstandings.