What was the withdrawal of the divine countenance? Was it God withdrawing from His Son?



No, it wasn't that, as God actually left heaven to be close to His Son (btw, Psalm 18, from which the "secret pavilion" comment was taken, poetically describes God's descent to be with Christ). So what happened?

The previous sentence gives the explanation: "But now with the terrible weight of guilt He bears, He cannot see the Father's reconciling face."

Throughout Scripture, the wrath of God is represented as His hiding His face, permitting the one suffering His wrath to suffer the consequences of his choice.

Thanks for the quotes, R. Didn't have time to look for them myself earlier.

I trust R's quotes are enough to establish the fact, even if we don't know why. In fact, you know very well the quote that says we owe even the bread we eat to Jesus. So I'm surprised this concept of "no God = no life" seems disagreeable to you.

Lucifer didn't die immediately. Where do you think he's been getting his life all these years? Does he have life in himself, apart from God, which he has been for a while. Perhaps "as soon as there was sin there was a Saviour" applies to Lucifer also.

No "annihilation" is needed. No God = no life. And that applies across the board. All God needs to do is to stop giving life, and death results immediately.

What does this mean? Our sin was upon Him? Is this something like chicken pox? What exactly was God seeing when He looked at Christ? I understand your saying its our sins, but what does this mean? What would our sins look like? What exactly was God doing?

I'm very familiar with the quotes. I was wondering what your thinking was. I don't see how a quote that is not understood would establish facts (unless it's simply repeating something the quote said, without understanding what it means).



I'm surprised that you would take my asking you a question as my taking a concept as disagreeable.



You said that Adam didn't die because of Christ's sacrifice. So I'm asking you why Lucifer didn't die. What do you mean by your last sentence above? (a very interesting thought;I'd like to hear more)

it wasnt my choice of word.

there are a couple, or more, issues involved in this subject, not to mention a couple of different perspectives by different parties on what this "penal" substitution looks like. i believe in substitution.....

but anyway, im running with different things going on, one being a baby pig who escapes his pen when hes hungry and comes looking for me. im losing track of which issue and which persons perspective im dealing with at the moment.

and sometimes just backing off and taking a break so the brain can process is a good idea.

i didnt mean anything by my comment. i was running and typed what popped in my mind. sorry about that. i meant to type the above, but when several things are on the brain.......

Our sins were imputed to Christ and God was judging them - condemning them. If I'm not mistaken, you often speak about this passage:

"Were the law understood apart from Christ, it would have a crushing power upon sinful men, blotting the sinner out of existence." {RH, February 8, 1898 par. 5}

You also often emphasize that "the law" represents God, His character.

This is what happened to Christ. How do you see this passage?

As I see it, there are truths in all the theories on the atonement. This does not mean that all the elements of each theory are necessarily true. The problem is that Tom doesn't seem to see anything true in the penal substitution theory, and this doesn't seem to me to be in agreement with the Bible and Ellen White's view. But this is an old discussion...