“The Nicene doctrine of God was undoubtedly Hebraic in basic slant and character, clearly the evident in its rejection of any conception of God so utterly transcendent that he cannot accommodate himself to natures other than his own, and does not interact with the world. But it is also evident in this stress upon the oneness and holiness of God who intervenes in history for the salvation of mankind, and upon the Word of God mediated through the biblical revelation of the Old Testament as well as of the New Testament. In its developed theological form its was a Hebraeo-Christian soteriological conception of God that prevailed, governed by the decisive fact that In Jesus Christ God himself personally intervenes in the world working out the salvation of mankind.”
55. Gen. 32.30: So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”
Num. 6.25: The Lord make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you;
2Chron. 7.14: and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Ps. 31.16 Make Your face to shine upon Your servant; Save me in Your lovingkindness.
56. See book.
57. Exodus 33.11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses returned to the camp, his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
60. A von Harnack, History of Dogma, Eng. tr. 1897, vol. III, pp. 143-145 (not 194).
61. Cf Martin Buber, Eclipse of God, 1957, p. 40
62 Cf, the arguments of Athenagoras of Athens in the second century A. D. against the anthropocentric character of images, Leg., 7-10, 15-18. See also Origen, Con Cels., 8.17-18; Eusebius of Caesarea, Opera, MPG 20, 1545-49 ; and cf. V Weilde, The Baptism of Art, Oxford, 1950 (N/A).
64. Athanasius Ad Ser., 1.16. . The Arians’ mythological projection of human relations into the Deity had the effect of sexising their notion of God, which in turn called for a form of demythologising! Thus also Gregory Naz., Or., 31.7
67. F W Camfield, Reformation Old and New, 1947, p.85
69. Greek icons are not regarded is mimetic images but as images referring spiritually and imagelessly to what they signify in the communion of the saints.This view of icons was clarified through the iconoclastic controversy. Cf. G florovsky, Collected Works II, Belmont, 1974, pp. 101-119.
71. Cf. Hilary: ‘The Word is a reality, not a sound, a being, not a speech, God, not a nonentity.’ De Trin., 2.15
72. Cf Plato’s discussion of what happens in the absence of a ‘divine logos’ from beyond ourselves, Phaedo 85 c.
Chapter 3 The Almighty Creator Footnotes 1-24