Arian Controversy seems to have been Over Emphasied

Tim at al,

I have been doing some research lately and it seems the standard account of what took place between Arius and Alexander of Alexandria has been misrepresented. I wanted to learn from the history of the past and my hope that this post might help others intereested in learning from men that have gone before us. I would like your opinion on this if possible as I share what I have found. I am using what Andries Van Niekerk of South Africa has put together as a post. His basis for a lot of what he has found is from a book titled The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God and then a seminar speech by RPC Hanson in which he summarisied his stance, plus many other books that he has read related to this subject.

He states that the contraversy has a number of phases and should not have been named the Arian Contraversy:-

The following are the main phases:
1. Second century: Logos theologians vs Monarchains
2. Third century: Origenists vs Sabellians
3. Arius vs Alexander
4. Nicene Council
5. The remainder of Constantine’s reign
6. The Divided Empire (340s)
7. Constantius’ reign (350s)
8. Meletian Schism (360-370s)
9. Theodosius’ reign (380-)

Extracted from this web page:- https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/real-issue-at-nicaea/

Overview of what the Real Main Issue in the Arian Controversy?

The issue was not whether the Son is divine or subordinate.

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, it was a struggle between Nicenes and Arians, and the main issue was whether Jesus is God, as the Nicenes claimed, or a created being, as the Arians claimed. However, over the last 100 years, scholars have discovered that the traditional account is a complete travesty. The Arians agreed that He is divine and the Nicenes agreed that He is subordinate.
The Controversy was also not about Arius’ theology.

Contrary to what is traditionally stated, He did not develop a new theology. He was a conservative. He was also not important. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples.
The Controversy was about whether the Son was a distinct divine Being.

Lienhard proposed that the main issue was the number of divine hypostases (Persons). In other words, the issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians believed, or part of the Father, as the Nicenes believed.

To understand this, it is important to realize that the idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons) did not yet exist. Athanasius and his followers believed that the Father and Son are a single Person. The idea of God being both one and three followed from the theology of the Cappadocians, much later in that century.
The Nicenes and Sabellians believed that the Father and Son are a single divine Being.

Lienhard classifies the Sabellians with the Nicenes. For example, while Alexander allied with the Sabellians at Nicaea, Athanasius allied with the Sabellians in later decades. The primary identification of Sabellian theology is ‘one hypostasis’; that the Father and Son are a single Person. But that is also what Alexander and Athanasius believed.
This brought Athanasius into severe conflict with the Cappadocians, who taught three hypostases.

One disadvantage of Lienhard’s classification is that it puts the Cappadocians with the Arians because both these groups taught three hypostases. To address this anomaly, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. the benefit of this classification is that it groups the Cappadocians with the other Nicenes, but it does not explain the severe conflict that developed between the Athanasians and the Cappadocians.
The core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person.

This article identifies the real main issue by providing an overview of the Controversy, showing who opposed who and who allied with who in each of its phases.

It concludes that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases, as Lienhard proposed, but that this also applies to the Cappadocians. It shows further that the two opposing groups were the Sabellians (not Nicenes) and the Eusebians (not Arians).
It was not an Arian Controversy; it was a Sabellian Controversy.

Furthermore, since it is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy on the assumption that Arius formulated a new heresy that threatened orthodoxy, it should rather be called the Sabellian Controversy because Sabellianism was already rejected in the third century but continued to threaten orthodoxy in the fourth century.
Purpose

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. It resulted in the Trinity doctrine, which some regard as “the centerpiece of orthodox theology” (GotQuestions), and formed the church that dominated the Middle Ages.

In the traditional account of that struggle between the Nicenes and the Arians, the main issue was whether Jesus is God. However, over the last 100 years, based on new information and research, scholars have described the Controversy very differently. The question arises, what was the fundamental issue that divided the Nicenes and Arians?

This article begins by explaining what the Controversy was NOT about. For example, it shows that, when the Controversy began, even the Arians described Jesus as divine. On the other hand, even the pro-Nicenes, even Athanasius, regarded Him as subordinate to the Father.

This article evaluates different proposals of what the real main issue was:

In the Nicene Creed, it seems as if the main issue was out of what the Son was begotten; out of nothing, or out of the substance of the Father.

In 1987, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases. In other words, whether the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians believed, or whether He and the Father are a single Person, as the Nicenes believed.

In 2011, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father.

This article evaluates these alternatives by providing an overview of the main phases of the Arian Controversy, showing in each phase who allied with whom, and who opposed who, indicating what the core issue was.

The rest can be read be going to the top link. Andries has many other helpful web pages on the book of Daniel and Revelation with a special focus on what could the mark of the beast be and he postulates that this issue will revolve around who is Christ and we might revisit what took place in the 4th Century AD all over again.

Blessings to all in Jesus Name!