The issue of authority is certainly not an easy one. Interesting that Arianism (and other early heresies, both internal and external) engaged the Church in arguments over how to properly interpret the text.

With respect to Nicea, Athanasius wins the day by using an exegetical method derived largely from Origen, which most evangelicals would consider foolish, at best. Yet orthodox Trinitarianism and Christology is the result. This is because the text could not be separated from the liturgical (baptismal, eucharistic, preaching) life of the Church. Christians worshiped Jesus from the beginning, thus to say that He was less than God was immediately suspect, although it seemed rational and even “biblical” in the minds of many.

Isn’t this the problem with ETS? Everyone is “biblical”, but this does not necessarily guarantee orthodoxy. They had to plug in a statement on the Holy Trinity because inerrancy was not enough. The Bible divorced from The Great Tradition (yes, difficult to define and prone to good debate)usually ends up being a book about morality, financial management, how to be a better (insert your station in life), me, myself, and I, etc.

I would love to hear how a person can hold an orthodox view of Christ and the Holy Trinity apart from submitting the the councils. It probably sounds like the Baptist Faith and Message, which reeks of modalism in its language (Disclaimer: I’m sure they have had to make revisions to the edition on my shelf- hopefully it sounds Nicene, without submitting to Nicea, of course).