Replies

I read your link. It had a bit of a pep rally flavor to it, but I didn't mind, because I rather like Athanasius. However, if your intent was to enlist him to establish the supremacy of the authority of councils in determining Christian belief, then "Houston, you have a problem." Athanasius is the paradigm of establishing truth from Scripture as the supreme authority, even when councils, popes, and all the politicians are against you. In other words, if Athanasius had not won the fight on the basis of building consensus by exegeting the deity of Christ from the pages of Scripture, if instead it had been decided by clerics and councils still in majority numbers under the spell of the Arian deviation, both the Roman and Eastern churches would today be proponents of Arian Christology, in defiance of Scripture.

Now I read your article. I invite you to read the following articles. I know, two for one is hardly fair, but they're both so good I couldn't make up my mind:

This first one give a detailed analysis (sans all pep rally flavoring) of the deliberations at Nicaea.

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-/#christian-books-6

(BTW, please note that Arius was first condemned as a heretic by a local Alexandrian council in 321. confirming the role of regional home rule even in doctrinal deliberation in the early church. This was not in contradiction of Paul's example of correcting errant congregatons, but rather in support of it, in the Berean model of local fellowships testing new teachers against Scripture.)

This next article delves a bit deeper into the specific understanding Athanasius had of the supremacy of Scriptural authority:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2009/05/athanasius_on_scriptures_natur.php

As for apostolic authority, it is still with us today, in book form. It is our Bible. But no one living today is qualified to claim the office of apostle. We both agree authority is important. But tracing the lines of authority requires a certain thoroughness. Many make claims that cannot be backed up, and it is better to suspend judgment until the analysis is complete, than to submit to a false authority through impatience.

For example, in replacing Judas, not just anyone could replace the fallen apostle:

Act 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

That is stated as a requirement, not a "nice to have." Even Paul was required to have met the resurrected Jesus personally on the road to Damascus, else he would not be qualified for the apostolic office. See also Acts 22:14-15 and 1 Corinthians 9:1.

In addition, an apostle was not selected through human ordination, as presbyters might be, but by direct selection of Jesus Himself:

Mar 3:13-15 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. (14) And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (15) And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

Finally, selection to the apostolic office entailed a unique capacity for demonstration of divine power through miracles:

Luk 9:1-2 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. (2) And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

Now, I have some odd people for nextdoor neighbors. They think they are apostles. Seriously. They have a church. They blow shofars. It's a latter rain cult, right on my doorstep. These same "apostles" were systematically disposing of construction garbage that was getting onto my property and damaging my tires. By the grace of God they were forced to withdraw. But needless to say these individuals, no matter how impressed they are with their own sense of apostolic entitlement, have not impressed me with their apostolic qualifications, at least not according to the three points listed above.

And I know of no one else who is qualified in that official sense of apostleship, though not as by office but as by function, all believers are "sent ones," sent into the world to share the Gospel with the lost. But the age of living apostolic authority has passed, which is exactly why the Bible has been given in their place, to serve, as it did for Athanasius, and for all reformers who would come after him, as the supreme authority in all matters of Christian life and doctrine.

Peace,

SR

Context, my FRiend. Context! We have writings from Athanasius that explain and qualify what he means by “sufficiency”. He allows that the Arians had an interpretation of Scripture. But, their interpretation is wrong because it denied what had ever been believed. Arius denied orthodoxy.

This is the vital point. In a contest of interpretations, which one wins? Athanasius appeals to an authority other than HIS own or the mere words of Scripture. I will snip a quote of his from

LINK

"For not only in outward form did those wicked men dissemble, putting on as the Lord says sheep's clothing, and appearing like unto whited sepulchres; but they took those divine words in their mouth, while they inwardly cherished evil intentions. And the first to put on this appearance was the serpent, the inventor of wickedness from the beginning-the devil,-who, in disguise, conversed with Eve, and forthwith deceived her. But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints [meaning orthodox saints or Fathers -- see article at top] have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, 'Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.' For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, 'If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed.'" (Festal Letter 2.6)

He asserts that tradition informs and supports his interpretation. The Council ratifies it and from here forward the line is clearly drawn. Orthodoxy is defined. Subsequent councils could then require Bishops to affirm Nicean orthodoxy.

Holding that Athanasius relied solely on Scripture must be understood in the context of what his other writings show HIS understanding to be. Athanasius surely held also with the transmission of apostolic authority, and I expect he would have dealt with your nutty neighbors in a couple of short paragraphs. But, that’s for further discussion.