That's what Arius said too, and were it not for Athanasius we'd all be Bible Believing Arians today.
That is funny, but I seriously doubt that the "Bible Christians" know who either of those two men are.
Not really...for reason that Arius was also arguing from standpoint of "tradition" and it was what is indicated in Scripture in wider and fuller considerations than Arius was relying upon (himself using just a few SOLO passages of scripture) which was basis for turning the tide once Athanasius presented his own (and his own bishop's) view.
It was not the Church of Rome who led the effort to correct the error.
Athanasius was not in any form under the bishop of Rome, but was (as hierarchy was structured at that time) under a bishop of Alexandria who himself was not *under* any other bishop, but himself himself occupying an Apostolic See considered equal with others of the Church...
If it had been an issue of hierarchical ranking and authority derived most chiefly in that manner, then what in the world was a young deacon of the Church at Alexandria doing leading the charge (so to speak). Athanasius contra mundus, et mundum contra Athanasium or "While the world is set against Athanasius, Athanasius is equally set against the world." For lurkers who may not be acquainted with this --- http://orthodoxwiki.org/Athanasius_of_Alexandria is where I just borrowed the more complete phrase (more complete than other expressions of it, made earlier on this thread).
That said, one of Athanasius's earliest and most influential supporters was a bishop from Spain who in turn helped influence a bishop of Rome to lend his own support to the cause of Athanasius and that man's Alexandrian bishop.
"Tradition" worked only to an extent or degree being that BOTH sides could lay claim to it in support of their own theological positions.
Best Scripture backing eventually won the contest -- or else we'd all be Arians(?), instead of today, the only ones who make 'Arian' sounding noises are Swedenborgians (and possibly Mormon's, by default) and such as Jehovah Witnesses at the higher levels of that religious organization (the run-of-the-mill JW likely as not does not understand the hows and why's of the differences -- and so could benefit from learning of more ancient history & tradition. I'll grant you that) and of course Muslims who among others denials of the Deity of this one we know as Jesus (and they often refer to as Isa) make it out to be that God created Jesus in the womb of Mary instead of conceiving (but without sexual intercourse) Jesus as real and actual Son of God --- the one and only Begotten Son --- as it is written.
One could try to convince Muslims by way of arguing from standpoint of Tradition --- yet I do believe it would be best to rely on Scripture foremost, and then add the follow-up of now traditional understanding.
The Gospel of John, chapter 24
27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
There's a problem with believing the Bible?
Do you think the Bible has ever been wrong?