In De decretis 18.4 Athanasius shows the juxtaposition between him and the Eusebians with regard to theological method, in particular the use of unscriptural terminology. In this section, Athanasius seems to give the impression that there are justifiable reasons for the use of unscriptural terms. Thus, he states: “why then, when they have invented (e)feuro/ntej)…unscriptural phrases … do they accuse those who are religious (eu)sebou=ntaj in their use of them?” Ernest (2004) gives insight into how Athanasius applied his ‘tripartite rule’ in the explanation of Prov.8:22 in de decretis, 13-14. Ayres (2004) makes a substantial contribution to the understanding of Athanasius’ position in the de decretis, though with a main focus on Athanasius’ defense of the term, ‘homoousios.’ Against this background our paper delves into the understanding of Athanasius’ use of unscriptural terminology in the de decretis and why, for him, his own position should be accepted against that of his opponents. The basic question this paper seeks to address is: what is the place of unscriptural terminology in Athanasius’ theology? If both Athanasius and the Eusebians use unscriptural terms, what then is Athanasius’ point of argument in this text? Is his use of unscriptural terms therein more appropriate than that of the Eusebians and, if so, on what grounds?