In my opinion, (not doctrinal) if you reject the Nicene, you are a quasi-Christian or a psuedo-Christian or a JW. Or worse, a relativistic liberal. Please cite scholarly sources from recent Protestant historians about Athanasius. JW's are half baked Arians. Good luck defending him.
If only opinions were all that mattered.....people would all be more confused than they already are.
Let me give you a run down on what my sources tell me.
The very first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church (Nicaea in 325 C.E.) started a great controversy within the Church over the Trinity doctrine.
Two groups of theologians were of such wide influence that they practically split Christianity into two camps, which were theological and political rivals for over two centuries. These were the ‘orthodox’ group led by Athanasius, an archdeacon of the church in Alexandria, and the Arians, (from Arius, a deacon in the same church). . . . The Athanasians were doctrinally trinitarians; the Arians were unitarians.”
The Arians held to “the doctrine that Christ the Son is subordinate to God the Father, and of different substance, because Christ was created by God and so came into being after God.”
The Trinitarians believed what their doctrine is defined as today......“the threefold personality of the one Divine Being,” in which ‘God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost’ are said to be of the same substance, coequal, and alike uncreated and omnipotent.”
They could not both be right....so what transpired is a matter of history.
In his book “The Development of Christian Doctrine”, 19th century Catholic Cardinal, John Henry Newman said that it is generally admitted that the Trinity teaching was a gradual development. He wrote that the creeds before Constantine’s time did not make any mention of it. “They make mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them.” (page 15)
So there is an admission all by itself.....it doesn’t exist as a doctrine mentioned in Scripture. The doctrine did not exist before Constantine’s time. Don’t we have to ask why?
Constantine professed to be converted to Christianity, doubtless as much due to political factors as religious ones. It was therefore very disturbing to see this doctrinal division, which was a threat to the unity of his empire. So as
Pontifex Maximus, that is, Chief Religious Ruler, he summoned the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 C.E. This is a pagan Roman title and one that the pope carries to this day.
Although he had not as yet been baptized as a Christian, (something that he did only as he was dying) Constantine presided over this council to which only some 318 bishops came; with their attendants the gathering may have numbered between 1,500 and 2,000. Imagine! An unbaptized pagan Roman emperor determining “Christian” beliefs. He is said to have been a worshipper of Zeus all his life, whilst giving the impression that he had converted to Christianity. He was two faced.
The ensuing years saw the two factions jockeying for supremacy as the issue continued to divide the church, often with violence and confrontation....especially from monastically trained monks who were not averse to resorting to violence to defend their trinitarian beliefs.
Perhaps the severest blow against the Arians was delivered by Emperor Theodosius. By means of the official decrees of 391-392 C.E., he imposed Roman Catholic orthodoxy upon all “Christians” and deprived the Arians, as well as all pagans, of their houses of worship.
Says a historian: “The legal triumph of the church over heresy [Arianism] and paganism and its evolution from a persecuted sect to a persecuting state church were complete.” And the Inquisition gained it’s foundation for persecuting any who disputed State enforced orthodox beliefs.
Arianism gained ground again from the Germanic invasions from the North, but gradually the [Roman] Catholic Church succeeded in eliminating Arianism. In some instances this was achieved by military action that all but wiped out the Germanic element. This took place during the reign of Emperor Justinian, whose ambition it was to restore the Roman Empire to its former glory and who was notorious for his persecution, not only of the Arians, but also of the Jews and the Samaritans. He even forbade the Jews to read their Scriptures in Hebrew!
History has a lot to say about the political activities of the Trinitarians and of the Arians down through the centuries, so one cannot help but be impressed with how accurately both Jesus and his apostles foretold what would happen to the Christian congregation.
As Jesus put in his parable.....
“While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat.” And so it was that the field that was originally a wheat field became a weed patch. (Matt 13:25) While men were spiritually slumbering.
And, considering what greed and violence these displayed, one appreciates how accurately the apostle Paul foretold these events....
“I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness.”
Included among those packs of wolves were both Trinitarians and Arians, the former being the fiercer of the two! (Acts 20:29)
And just to be clear.....JW’s are not Arians just because we reject the trinity.....we worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians, nor the “unknown God” of Arius. We say, with the apostle Paul:
“There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.” (1 Cor 8:6)
This is the “one God” that Christ himself worshipped...and still does, even in heaven. (Rev 3:12)
It's not Athanasius who is misguided.
History argues that they both were....Christendom is a product of the weeds.....no matter what they call themselves or which side of the trinitarian argument they stand on.....if we do not “know the only true God” AND “the one he sent”, then we do not know God at all. (John 17:3) 
