Continuing from Adam S. Miller and his book “Original Grace”:
From yesterday’s post: “Sin adds to our suffering because “wickedness never was happiness,” not because God insists that we suffer. God’s work is to relieve and redeem that suffering. He suffered for my sins so that I wouldn’t have to. If I still suffer for sin, this is because I insist on suffering. I insist on refusing God’s grace. I refuse to repent. “And surely every man must repent or suffer” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:4). Does suffering, in general, have a purpose? No. Suffering is just a fact of life. . . now continuing:
According to the logic of original sin, the purpose of the law is punishment. The law’s purpose is to judge what is deserved. The law is a divine mechanism for judging who deserves to suffer (or not) and to what degree. The point of law is accusation.
The logic of grace, on the other hand, takes the purpose of the law to be love. The law’s purpose is still to judge—but, now to judge what is needed. The law is a divine mechanism for judging what is needed to relieve and liberate sinners. The point of the law is Grace.
The contrast between the two logic’s is sharp. Where sin reasons backward about whether someone’s suffering is deserved, Grace reasons forward about how best to respond to that suffering. Where sin understands God’s law as a tool of condemnation, Grace understands God’s law as a discipline of compassion. Where sin uses the law to obligate suffering, grace uses the law to command succor.
Sin begins from the original assumption of guilt and concludes that suffering is deserved. Grace begins with the original reality of suffering and concludes that redemption is needed.
Sin uses God’s law to ask what is deserved. Grace uses God’s law to ask what is needed. ~Adam S. Miller, Previously Published “Letters to a Young Mormon, An Early Resurrection” . . . .Original Grace “An Experiment in Restoration Thinking” (Deseret Book, BYU Maxwell Insitute, 2022,) p.30-31
