[don-o]

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.

[Springfield Reformer]

But, their interpretation is wrong because it denied what had ever been believed.

No, that is not what he says. Their interpretation is wrong because it was an untrue handling of Scripture, using Scripture as a mere cover for evil intent, which never was to purvey truth, but to act as Satan and beguile us away from the truth. Their conflict with the opinions of the saints is not a cause of error but an effect of error, resulting "because they do not rightly know them [the Scriptures] nor their power."

And who does He cite as representative of these saintly opinions? An apostle, with full apostolic authority, and not lesser men: "Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions." And Paul's traditions were not some extra-Biblical data stream known only to certain select insiders, but are God-breathed truth recorded for us openly in Scripture, so it is the same thing being pointed to in both places, Scripture!

So, not to wear out the NASA meme, but there's still a problem here for using Athanasius to support an equality of authority as between Scripture and councils, such that obligations of Christian belief could be created that had no basis in Scripture. He does not equate them or put them on the same level at all, but gives Scripture logical precedence in determining truth, in perfect keeping with the Protestant position. Which position does not exclude the advice and input of godly teachers, but does not elevate them beyond persuasive authority, as opposed to binding authority.

This distinction also holds in the practice of law. A case occurring in another jurisdiction, or in the same jurisdiction at a lower level, may be brought forward as persuasive evidence of the true interpretation of the law, under an appeal to reason and not raw authority. But such case law is not binding on the court.  Only case law in the same jurisdiction and from a superior court can act to bind the decision of the court.  

So we see this principle in Athanasius, as here, from the link I provided earlier:

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.

The Supreme Court of divine truth is that which has been spoken by God, Scripture.  That is the only binding authority, and that is the "sufficiency above all things" of which he speaks.  But as he says, councils may be needed, and it may help to consult the patristic writings, even though they are not a canon of Scripture, and therefore not anything but persuasive.  And in his one example, the Nicene Bishops, does he describe their voice as independently authoritative, or does he relate their derived authority back to its true foundation? The latter, as the force of their words comes only from honest readers being "reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."

Peace,

SR