Was Athanasius Catholic?

[p90]

JPrejean:

The real question is what Athanasius meant by the Trinity being provable from Scripture, and you haven’t proved in the least that he meant that someone who was unschooled in Tradition and untrained in the life and practice of the Church would be able to do so.

It’s hard to know if you’re properly representing my argument when you use vague terms such as “Tradition” and “the life and practice of the Church”. What do you mean by these terms?

Without that traditional understanding, there is no warrant in the text itself for assuming that they should even be relevant to other New Testament texts that Athanasius interprets.

Is that something which Athanasius states or is it something which you have concluded on the basis of Athanasius’ interpretations of those texts? Since Sola Scriptura does not deny the usefulness of traditional interpretations as authoritative (Protestants do this when citing, for example, the Nicene Creed), does Athanasius state that his interpretations would not be possible or plausible without the traditional understanding?

it is implausible to further assert that he considered this meaning discernible by the text alone (formal sufficiency).

Since you disagree that the original quotation provided in this thread supports formal sufficiency, please propose another, more probable interpretation of it.

I think there is an error here in treating Athanasius’s beliefs on the papacy and on Scripture as entirely separate.

I didn’t mean that they are entirely separate. But they are concepts which should be considered individually, at least at first. What I’m objecting to is the type of argumentation which rushes to another quote of a father before refuting or even explaining the one in question.

Additionally, there are quotes which are irrelevant to a discussion. Not everything that a father says in one area is appropriately relevant to his beliefs in another. Even if you disagree with the example I’ve provided with Clement of Rome, you should be willing to agree to the principle behind it.

~Matt

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Alright, let’s start from the beginning.

Here’s the original quote in question, in its full context:

But the Councils which they are now setting in motion, what colourable pretext have they? If any new heresy has risen since the Arian, let them tell us the positions which it has devised, and who are its inventors? And in their own formula, let them anathematize the heresies antecedent to this Council of theirs, among which is the Arian, as the Nicene Fathers did, that it may appear that they too have some cogent reason for saying what is novel. But if no such event has happened, and they have it not to shew, but rather they themselves are uttering heresies, as holding Arius’s irreligion, and are exposed day by day, and day by day shift their ground, what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith? For even the notorious Aetius, who was surnamed godless, vaunts not of the discovering of any mania of his own, but under stress of weather has been wrecked upon Arianism, himself and the persons whom he has beguiled. Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s 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 doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.

Saint Athanasius ascribes “sufficiency” to the Nicene Council, but “sufficiency above all” to the Scriptures. The two are not at all mutually exclusive, as Protestantism would have us think, but complimentary.

Indeed, Catholicism does ascribe a primacy of Scripture over all the other products of Sacred Tradition. As “Catholic Answers” apologist Jimmy Akin puts it:

. . . Apostolic Scripture and Apostolic Tradition are married together, with Apostolic Scripture taking the lead and Apostolic Tradition filling a supportive, interpretive role, just as a man and a woman are married together, the man taking the lead and the woman filling a helpful, supportive role, explaining and interpreting the husband’s will to the children when his own explanations have not made it thoroughly clear to them.

This is a doctrine Catholics call prima Scriptura. Apostolic Scripture does have primacy over Apostolic Tradition (and the Church as well; see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 21). We look to it first and foremost because it is inspired, giving us God’s ipsisima verba “words themselves”]. But we also look to Apostolic Tradition to help us understand Apostolic Scripture, since it conveys God’s ipsisima vox “voice itself”]. As a Catholic I don’t believe in sola scriptura, but I firmly believe in prima scriptura.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Here’s what the Second Vatican Council said on the subject:

The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: “For the word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

By your standards, Vatican II was essentially a Protestant Council!

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Keep in mind, too, that Nicea itself never claimed to deliberate and rule “by Scripture alone,” just as the Apostolic Council didn’t claim likewise (see Acts 15):

And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Not a single Scriptural citation in the definition, and look with what authority the Nicene Church proclaims it. How many “Bible-Only” Protestant assemblies would have the gall to make a like declaration.

It’s one that’s mirrored by Athanasius:

Such has been the end of Arius: and Eusebius and his fellows, overwhelmed with shame, buried their accomplice, while the blessed Alexander, amidst the rejoicings of the Church, celebrated the Communion with piety and orthodoxy, praying with all the brethren, and greatly glorifying God, not as exulting in his death (God forbid!), for ‘it is appointed unto all men once to die,’ but because this thing had been shewn forth in a manner transcending human judgments. For the Lord Himself judging between the threats of Eusebius and his fellows, and the prayer of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, shewing it to be unworthy of communion with the Church, and making manifest to all, that although it receive the support of the Emperor and of all mankind, yet it was condemned by the Church herself. So the antichristian gang of the Arian madmen has been shewn to be unpleasing to God and impious; and many of those who before were deceived by it changed their opinions. For none other than the Lord Himself who was blasphemed by them condemned the heresy which rose up against Him, and again shewed that howsoever the Emperor Constantius may now use violence to the Bishops in behalf of it, yet it is excluded from the communion of the Church, and alien from the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore also let the question which has arisen among you be henceforth set at rest; (for this was the agreement made among you), and let no one join himself to the heresy, but let even those who have been deceived repent. For who shall receive what the Lord condemned? And will not he who takes up the support of that which He has made excommunicate, be guilty of great impiety, and manifestly an enemy of Christ?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

And again:

For this was why an ecumenical synod has been held at Nicaaea, 318 bishops assembling to discuss the faith on account of the Arian heresy, namely, in order that local synods should no more be held on the subject of the Faith, but that, even if held, they should not hold good. For what does that Council lack, that any one should seek to innovate? It is full of piety, beloved; and has filled the whole world with it. Indians have acknowledged it, and all Christians of other barbarous nations. Vain then is the labour of those who have often made attempts against it. For already the men we refer to have held ten or more synods, changing their ground at each, and while taking away some things from earlier decisions, in later ones make changes and additions. And so far they have gained nothing by writing, erasing, and using force, not knowing that ‘every plant that the Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up.’ But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever. For if one compare number with number, these who met at Nicaea are more than those at local synods, inasmuch as the whole is greater than the part. But if a man wishes to discern the reason of the Synod at Nicaea, and that of the large number subsequently held by these men, he will find that while there was a reasonable cause for the former, the others were got together by force, by reason of hatred and contention. For the former council was summoned because of the Arian heresy, and because of Easter, in that they of Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia differed from us, and kept the feast at the same season as the Jews. But thanks to the Lord, harmony has resulted not only as to the Faith, but also as to the Sacred Feast. And that was the reason of the synod at Nicaea. But the subsequent ones were without number, all however planned in opposition to the ecumenical.

If this isn’t Catholicism, I don’t know what is . . .

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The question was Athanasius excommunicated by Liberius the answer is yes, you asserted that he was not.

An excommunication signed by a man who did not have the full use of his rational faculty is not a true or valid excommunication at all. Athanasius himself knew this (read above, post # 39). Saint
Liberius was always his defender.

 

[PhilVaz]

St. Athanasius:

Roman Catholic on the Pope

Roman Catholic on Scripture and Tradition

Some decade I’ll finish this response to Webster/King

Phil P

 

[WBB]

bbas 64:

Good Day, WBB

You think , the problem with what you present is the fact that have never did. So to think that is only germaine in your dreams and lacks material to support it.

Peace to u,

Bill

No. You misunderstand my sarcasm. What I was basically saying is that IF he had said such a thing, you protestants would still not believe it.

 

[Maccabees]

This subject is plain ridiculous this is like a catholic claiming John Calvin was a secret catholic. I am sure I can take something out of context and spin it to no end to make Calvin a catholic but I am not swindler of history redux like many protestant apologists.
The catholic church never denided that scripture was materiial sufficient there is no problem with anthansius stance here. What would be problematic for protestants is his stance of the authority of councils and traditions also his recognition of catholic sacraments and a catholic view of justification. But they won’t give you his quotes in context on those catholic beliefs will they?

 

[JPrejean]

p90:

It’s hard to know if you’re properly representing my argument when you use vague terms such as “Tradition” and “the life and practice of the Church”. What do you mean by these terms?

It’s pretty hard to properly represent any argument that uses equally vague constructions about whether a council is “needed,” whether something was “possible to refute from Scripture alone” or “possible or plausible without the traditional understanding,” and how Protestants recognize the “usefulness of traditional interpretations as authoritative.” That’s why I grounded the discussion in the particular argument that Athanasius made (specifically, the conclusion that the Psalms were Messianic and the argumentation from the books of Susannah and Baruch as Scripture).

Is that something which Athanasius states or is it something which you have concluded on the basis of Athanasius’ interpretations of those texts?

My conclusion is simply a commentary on the argument that Athanasius actually used. By the standard of sola scriptura, his argument would be insufficient, which is exactly the point illustrated here:

Since Sola Scriptura does not deny the usefulness of traditional interpretations as authoritative (Protestants do this when citing, for example, the Nicene Creed), does Athanasius state that his interpretations would not be possible or plausible without the traditional understanding?

The entire point is that he makes no argument as to whether his belief is “possible or plausible without the traditional understanding.” Indeed, he doesn’t make any assessment of the possibility or plausibility of the traditional understanding at all; he takes for granted that they are correct and immutable. That is patently obvious from his numerous statements elsewhere (which you consider inadmissible), but the structure of this argument alone suffices to make it clear that he considers the traditional interpretation permanently binding on one’s interpretation of Scripture, not subject to challenge or revision. For Athansius, the traditional interpretation IS the meaning of Scripture; there is no separate “objective meaning” of Scripture that can conflict with it. It’s so automatic for Athanasius that it’s not even perceived to be relying on tradition when he does this; it’s simply the way that Christians read Scripture. The Protestant would consider such interpretations useful, but not absolutely binding and immune to revision, as Athanasius does. That is why he’s Catholic and not Protestant (regardless of how narrowly you or Mathison define sola scriptura in the Protestant mindset).
(cont)

 

[JPrejean]

(cont)

Since you disagree that the original quotation provided in this thread supports formal sufficiency, please propose another, more probable interpretation of it.

That’s trivial if you don’t anachronistically read “the perspicuous meaning of Scripture which can be discerned by sound hermeneutics (for which tradition may be a useful but not absolutely binding guide) that serves as a standard by which all other beliefs can be judged” into his statement. From Athanasius’s own writings, it is clear that by Scripture, Athanasius means “the traditional interpretation of Scripture,” i.e., the Catholic rule of faith. In fact, it is so obvious that Athanasius doesn’t even need to state it (and St. Augustine later berates Maximinus roundly for even suggesting otherwise).

I didn’t mean that they are entirely separate. But they are concepts which should be considered individually, at least at first. What I’m objecting to is the type of argumentation which rushes to another quote of a father before refuting or even explaining the one in question.

Nonsense. I find such methods abhorrent; no respectable patristics scholar would employ them. If it weren’t for such nonsensical prooftexting and obfuscation, there wouldn’t even be a pretense that Protestantism was anything other than a historical novelty. Your argument about Athanasius, which can be refuted by thinking critically about it even in the limited context you proposed, would be completely untenable in the larger corpus of Athanasius’s work. I’m willing to concede that we can’t do such comprehensive examination here, but it does need to be done somewhere. One easy way to resolve that is to responsibly quote from scholars like Pelikan, Schaff, Bruce, Kelly, Congar, etc., which provides a fact-check on someone’s theory (such as PhilVaz’s introductory quote from Schaff on Athanasius). Even that can be abused, but it’s a lot easier to call people on taking a scholar out of context than it is to examine the entire corpus of patristic writings.

 

[Katholikos]

rschermer2:

Actually, I think he was Four Square Full Gospel Baptist.

Naw, Athanasius was a Bible-totin’ Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist.:yup: Uh, er, well, come to think of it, he might have been a Duck River Baptist.:whacky:. If he wasn’t Catholic, what was he?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

p90,

p90:

Athanasius says otherwise in the original quote provided:

“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things.”

St. Athanasius is not referring to Ecumenical Councils, but to other councils demanded by the Arians in an attempt to reverse the Nicene. Not that immediately followin the quote, St. Athansiaus says “**but if a Council be needed …” **Obviously the sufficiency of Sacred Scripture, in St. Athanasius’ view MAY ACTUALLY STILL NEED A COUNCIL to refute heresies.

The ***sufficiency, ***with regard to Arianism is in the Nicene Council (as was quoted two sentences prior to your quote above). Above all things, Sacred Scripture, when rightly interpreted was indeed sufficient to refute Arianism. Arians were not convinced of the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, however. St. Athanasius also asserted the “sufficiency” already decreed by the Nicene Council. This is Catholic doctrine. Sacred Scripture IS certainly sufficient to refute Arianism when rightly interpreted. How do we know the “right” interpretation? By comparing the doctrine to that which the Fathers handed on. How do we know the conclusion of this comparison? Ecumenical Councils are sufficient and definitive to that end. THE NICENE COUNCIL was definitive on the matter.

Fast forward to Protestantism and we have wide spread disagreement as to what the Nicene Council declared regarding the eternal Sonship of Christ. This is well documented by various evangelical Protestants. Why? Because a cornerstone of Protestant ecclesiology is that NO COUNCIL or DECREE can have authority over one’s personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Was this what St. Athanasius believed? Only a fool would assert such a thing.

On the contrary, for St. Athanasius, when private interpretation of Sacred Scripture doesn’t agree with Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, the Council was ***sufficient ***to refute the heresy.

continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

p90,

continued …

You may not agree with your evangelical protestors of the Nicene Council, but that’s irrelevant. Their “sola scriptura” epistemology is the foundation of Protestantism and without the authority of the Nicene Council or all other Ecumenical Councils, sola scriptura has no boundaries for denying Divine and Catholic Faith as handed on by the Fathers.

Where does Athanasius write that a council is needed because Scripture isn’t sufficient to relate the proper doctrine and explain it?

Two sentences above your quote, he declared the Nicene sufficient. Right after your quote, he states “but if a Council be needed …” which cleary shows St. Athanasius KNEW that there existed the possibility that a Council would indeed be needed, as in the case of heretics interpreting Scripture contrarily to the Fathers to assert their error.

I don’t have to prove it. The question is whether or not Athanasius believed the Arian position was possible to refute from Scripture alone. He did.

I agree. I too believe the Arian position is possible to refute from Scripture, but only if the antagonists accept the same Catholic rule of faith as St. Athanasius, which included discerning *right *interpretation of Scripture by comparison to that which APOSTOLICAL MEN taught. I’ve given the quotes above to support this rule of faith as St. Athanasius’ own. The problem was that Arius and his disciples rejected this rule of faith. As do Protestants. Thus, since many Protestants reject the eternal Sonship of Christ based upon Scripture alone, they do so precisely because they do not BOUND their interpretation of Sacred Scritpure by that doctrine taught by the APOSTOLICAL MEN who came before them. St. Athanasius would be appalled.

Thus, an Ecumenical Council is sufficient to decree (as the apostles did in Jerusalem regarding circumcision) the official doctrine and disciplines of the APOSTOLICAL MEN, as opposed to the heterodox and/or heretical doctrines.

In addition to the original quotation, Athanasius writes:

“It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son’s eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases ‘He was not,’ and ‘before’ and ‘when,’ are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures” (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13).

I agree with St. Athanasius. However, many Sola Scripturists such as the Calvinist theologian I cited above, disagree that the Son was the Son before the incarnation. They interpret Scripture to mean that there were three persons of the Trinity, Divine Person #1, Divine Person #2, and Divine Person #3. Not one of these persons are “eternally begotten” or “generated” from another, or “eternally proceeding” from another, according to their Scripture alone interpretation. That would imply eternal hypostatic subordination, which they believe is not taught in Scripture, according to their own private lights. They assert instead a temporal, not eternal subordination. That which is typically called “economic subordination.” They use their Protestant epistemology to bring into doubt the orthodoxy of the Nicene Creed. There’s no bound for sola scriptura in it’s denial of the Divine and Catholic faith.

 

[JPrejean]

itsjustdave1988:

Sacred Scripture IS certainly sufficient to refute Arianism when rightly interpreted. How do we know the “right” interpretation? By comparing the doctrine to that which the Fathers handed on. How do we know the conclusion of this comparison? Ecumenical Councils are sufficient and definitive to that end. THE NICENE COUNCIL was definitive on the matter.

Actually, St. Athanasius was not making that argument in the section that p90 quoted. There is a later section where he talks about Scripture in light of councils. However, in the section where he is speaking exclusively about Scripture (without resorting to councils), he still relies on “tradition” in his interpretation, just not the formal statements of tradition embodied in councils and the like.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Since you disagree that the original quotation provided in this thread supports formal sufficiency, please propose another, more probable interpretation of it.

St. Athanasius means material sufficiency of Scripture, that the contents (material) of Sacred Scripture is sufficient to refute Arianism, but that Sacred Scripture is not self-interpreting, that any and all will rightly interpret Scripture in the manner that it was intended by God. There are many who would interpret the material of Scripture in a heretical or heterodox way, to their destruction. Thus the “sufficiency” of the Nicene is needed to distinguish between heterodox usages of Scripture and orthodox interpretation. In otherwords, the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” just as Scripture declares it to be.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

However, in the section where he is speaking exclusively about Scripture (without resorting to councils).

Then what did he mean when he says “but if a Council be needed …” immediately following p90’s excerpt? Appearantly, St. Athanasius was not merely addressing the sufficiency of Scripture without need for councils, but really arguing against ADDITIONAL councils in reference to these new Arian claims.

Let’s paraphrase that which St. Athanasius asserted in the
quote given in post #62 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=275802&postcount=62

Why are new councils needed with respect to these Arian heresies? Let them anathematize these heresies like the Nicene Fathers did, using the Nicene formula. The Nicene Council is sufficient to refute these heretics, just as it was sufficient to refute the Arians. Vainly do these heretics wrecked upon Arianism demand new Councils. Divine Scripture is sufficient above all things, but if a Council is needed, there are the proceedings of the Fathers of the Nicene Council, which states so exactly the doctrine of the religion of Christ announced in divine Scripture.

He’s arguing for steadfast adherence to the Nicene formula!!!

The main argument Athanasius is making is the sufficiency of the Nicene Council for refuting any new Arian-like heresies. He certainly asserts that Scripture is sufficient above all else, against Arianism, as he has always held without wavering. However, just as it was prior to the Nicene Council, not all heretics accepted St. Athanasius’ rule of faith concerning right interpretation of Scripture. Thus the Nicene was indeed needed and “sufficient” to refute Arianism, as it “**stated the doctrine so exactly.” **

 

[p90]

JPrejean:

It’s pretty hard to properly represent any argument that uses equally vague constructions about whether a council is “needed,” whether something was “possible to refute from Scripture alone” or “possible or plausible without the traditional understanding,” and how Protestants recognize the “usefulness of traditional interpretations as authoritative.”

If you weren’t satisfied with the specificity of my terms, why would you then use vague terms yourself? You could have asked for me to define what I wrote in a more concrete manner.

That is patently obvious from his numerous statements elsewhere (which you consider inadmissible), but the structure of this argument alone suffices to make it clear that he considers the traditional interpretation permanently binding on one’s interpretation of Scripture, not subject to challenge or revision.

I don’t consider all statements “inadmissible”, and neither do I think all but the original quotation in this thread are irrelevant to Athansius’ view of Scripture.

I have a request regarding two points you have made so far:

My conclusion is simply a commentary on the argument that Athanasius actually used.

From Athanasius’s own writings, it is clear that by Scripture, Athanasius means “the traditional interpretation of Scripture,” i.e., the Catholic rule of faith.

Would you mind demonstrating these two points? The conclusions might be obvious to you, but such a position is not useful in discussion with someone holding to another view. If, in light of this comment:

I’m willing to concede that we can’t do such comprehensive examination here, but it does need to be done somewhere.

you would rather point me toward scholarship that you think sufficiently discusses this issue, I would be happy to research this from sources you recommend rather than attempt to touch upon a subject that you may believe is too complicated to be approached on a discussion board.

Thanks for your thoughts so far. I am not a profound person, so I appreciate that you, obviously being more well-read and having considered this particular debate in more detail, would take the time to interact with me.

~Matt

 

[JPrejean]

itsjustdave1988:

Then what did he mean when he says “but if a Council be needed …” immediately following p90’s excerpt?

It appears to be in the vein of “we don’t need one, but even assuming for the sake of argument that we did need one…”

Appearantly, Athanasius was not merely addressing the sufficiency of Scripture without nedd for ALL councils, but really arguing against ADDITIONAL councils in reference to these new Arian claims.

It’s entirely true that Athanasius was arguing against the need for additional councils, but ISTM that Athanasius is really arguing that even the Nicene Council was not strictly necessary, although it was helpful in stating exactly why Arianism is heretical. Again, I agree with your general sentiment, but the entire purpose of Athanasius’s argument (quote by p90) was that the divinity of Christ could be demonstrated from the right interpretation of Scripture without recourse to council documents or other formal statements of doctrine (even the Nicene decrees).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Again, I agree with your general sentiment, but the entire purpose of Athanasius’s argument (quote by p90) was that the divinity of Christ could be demonstrated from the right interpretation of Scripture without recourse to council documents or other formal statements of doctrine (even the Nicene decrees).

I agree that was his main argument before Nicea. I also agree that he maintained that argument in this quote, but I disagree that this is the main theme of the paragraph.

This quote is post-Nicene. In greater context (taking the paragraph as a whole), it has more to do with arguing the sufficiency of the Nicene formula against the need for another formula from other councils. The sufficiency of Scripture is certainly asserted, but it is a minor point of his, made almost as a sidenote or a recollection of his pre-Nicene assertion. The entire context of this particular quote, however, is a defense of the Nicene formula against the Arian proposition of convening further councils.

St. Athanasius asserts in the paragraph in question that the right response to these new Arian-like heretics who want new councils to promote semi-Arian formulas is to refute them in the same manner as the Nicene Fathers, using the Nicene formula. He’s not advocating a Scriptural argument in this paragraph. Arguments from an orthodox interpretation of Scripture should have worked prior to Nicea, but they didn’t. In this post-Nicea refutation against new forms of Arianism, he’s advocating the sufficiency of the doctrine “so exactly” described by Nicea. He’s not advocating a replay of the pre-Nicene arguments which consisted of thrusting Scriptural passages at one another. It didn’t work before, so there’s no expectation that this will work post-Nicea. He’s merely saying that further councils are not needed as the doctrine in question was sufficiently and so clearly formulated at Nicea. Scripture was indeed sufficient to refute Arianism, yet nothing more than Nicea is required because the exactness of that formula.

Ironically, like Scripture, Nicea ought to have been sufficient to refute Arianism, but it didn’t. Arianism continued due to political influence. Once that influence disappeared, so did Arianism.