10 Reasons Trump Did Not Incite an Insurrection on January 6

If there’s one argument wielded as a silver bullet by Trump’s critics, it’s the January 6 insurrection narrative. The only problem with this story is that almost every detail is false. With the entire Democratic caucus putting on a staged piece of political theater with a candlelight vigil to honor the memory of Jan 6 five years ago, I came across this piece of clear thinking that sums it up much better than I ever could.  First, my take:

I'll take shit that never happened for $500, Alex.

Storms Capitol - stays inside velvet ropes.

Storms Capitol - after someone opened the doors from the inside.

Storms Capitol  - but stops to take selfies.

500,000 rabid conservatives surrounding the capital - you know, the sorts of people who consider having 20 guns and 100,000 rounds of ammunition "a good start" - storms Capitol, and no one got hurt except an unarmed conservative woman who was murdered by a Capitol Police officer.

If you believe any of this shit, you'll believe anything.

And now the excellent article by Kurt Mahlburg

President Donald Trump has no shortage of flaws. We know this because they have featured as lead stories in the corporate media for eight long years.

But if there’s one argument wielded as a silver bullet by Trump’s critics, it’s the January 6 insurrection narrative. It goes something like this:

"On January 6, 2021 — one of the darkest days in American history — Donald Trump incited an insurrection against the United States government. By spreading lies about a stolen election, he provoked a violent mob to storm the Capitol and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. Trump’s attempted coup d’état caused the death of five people, showed a dangerous disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution, and sought to overturn the will of the American people."

The only problem with this story is that almost every detail is false.

Here are ten reasons to reject the claim that Donald Trump incited an insurrection on January 6.

1. Security Failures

It is now a well-established fact that Trump feared possible unrest in the days leading up to January 6, and specifically requested the National Guard be deployed to maintain safety and order — a rather strange move for someone planning a coup.

More shocking is that Trump’s requests for beefed-up security were ignored or blocked by key officials such as Nancy Pelosi, who was responsible for Capitol security, and General Mark Milley, who was the nation’s highest-ranking military officer and the principal military advisor to the president.

At worst, the January 6 security failures may have been part of plot by Trump’s ideological enemies to let chaos reign and later frame Trump. At best, Trump hardly deserves blame for the failures of others after he took proactive steps to ensure peace.

2. Trump’s Calls for Calm

During President Trump’s second impeachment trial in February 2021, House Democrats played a video of the speech Trump gave before his supporters descended on Capitol Hill. In that video, they carefully omitted a key phrase from Trump’s speech in which he urged his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”.

It was one of many occasions when Trump’s critics suppressed a crucial piece of evidence — namely, his direct calls for calm and peace — in an effort to frame him as the architect of the Capitol Attack.

Shortly after the Capitol Building was breached, Donald Trump made the following post on Twitter:

"I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Less than two hours later, he published a video on Twitter explaining that, even though the election was stolen, “You have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great men and women in blue. We have to respect the law. And we don’t want anybody hurt.”

Twitter (under the influence of the FBI, as we have since learned via the Twitter Files), swiftly deleted both Trump’s tweet and his video that called for calm. The following day, Twitter permanently suspended his account, making his posts permanently inaccessible.

On all three occasions — Trump’s initial speech, his follow-up tweet, and his published video, the 45th President was explicit in urging peace and calm that day.

These calls for calm simply do not square with the claim that Trump incited a violent insurrection on January 6 — which is apparently why all three statements were suppressed by his detractors.

3. Lack of Guns

There are approximately 400 million privately owned firearms in the United States, according to recent estimates. Meanwhile, survey data from Pew Research indicates that Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to own a gun. Put together, these statistics suggest that Republicans are the most heavily armed political bloc in the history of planet earth.

The January 6 insurrection narrative requires us to believe a most implausible claim: that the most heavily armed political bloc in the history of planet earth attempted an insurrection against the world’s most powerful government without the use of firearms and without firing a shot.

Why did the January 6 protesters come unarmed if they were planning an insurrection?

4. Capitol Welcome

Approximately 900 protesters breached the Capitol on January 6. While a small number engaged in vandalism, the vast majority were peaceful, orderly, and more like sightseers than rioters. They queued in lines, gave each other tours, took selfies, and smiled as they explored the Capitol. While they broke the law by trespassing, the video footage offers no proof they intended to overthrow the government.

Unfortunately, the corporate media was highly selective in the footage it chose to air in its reporting on January 6. Shockingly, the FBI and the U.S. Capitol Police withheld 40,000 hours of security footage from the public while the two-year investigation into January 6 was underway.

In March 2023, then Fox News host Tucker Carlson gained exclusive access to that footage. One of the biggest revelations from the secret footage was how readily Capitol Police allowed protesters inside, and how compliant protesters were with law enforcement.

As the late comedian Norm Macdonald jested on the day, “I loved when the violent terrorists made sure to respect the velvet ropes in Statuary Hall.”

None of these facts square with the claim that the January 6 protesters intended to violently overthrow the government. And by suppressing exculpatory footage, Trump’s detractors exposed the fragility of their version of events.

5. January 6 Deaths

Central to the narrative that January 6 was a violent insurrection is the oft-repeated claim that five people died in connection with the event.

On closer inspection, this claim falls apart. Five people died and each of their deaths were tragic, but none were caused by intentional violence from protesters — and in fact, all but one of them were protesters.

Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick did not die after being struck by a protester wielding a fire extinguisher, as legacy media outlets initially claimed. He collapsed eight hours after the Capitol breach, suffered two strokes, and died of natural causes early the next day. Notably, Sicknick was a Trump supporter.

Two others, Kevin Greeson and Robert Keith Latham, both protesters, died of heart attacks many hours after the event. Both men had pre-existing conditions.

Rosanne Boyland was another protester who died that day. Media outlets initially claimed she was crushed to death during a stampede, but her official autopsy found she actually died from an accidental overdose of amphetamines.

The only person actually killed at the event was Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran. Though she was unarmed, Babbitt was shot and killed by Capitol Police officer Lt. Michael Byrd while trying to breach a window inside the Capitol building. Byrd was less than eight feet away when he fired his fatal shot, and though many argue his response was disproportionate, he was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing.

Tragically, a string of suicides followed the events of that day, including four Capitol Police officers, whose deaths were widely reported in the media. Much less attention has been given to the suicides of at least five January 6 defendants who, thanks to the false insurrection narrative, faced years in prison for actions that would normally have been treated as misdemeanours.

While injustices took place on January 6 and in its aftermath, protesters that day killed precisely no one, and even the best red herrings from the media won’t change that fact.

6. Prejudiced Investigation

The findings of the January 6th Committee supposedly represent the definitive version of events from that day. Yet the committee’s formation and conduct raises serious questions about impartiality.

It’s hard to deny the committee began with the predetermined conclusion Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection, and then designed their inquiry to confirm this narrative. Consider that:

• The committee was comprised entirely of Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans, lacking true bipartisan representation
• Witnesses were not cross-examined, which prevented any real-time challenge to their testimonies
• Witness statements were apparently rehearsed, betraying the inquiry’s supposed intent as a fact-finding mission
• The committee ignored the broader context of security failures, presented doctored evidence, withheld exculpatory footage, and relied on partisan interpretations of Trump’s statements
• Their case against Trump was legally flimsy, focussing mostly on his inaction rather than any clear criminal acts.

At best, the committee’s report would hardly establish Donald Trump’s guilt in a court of law. That record numbers of Americans voted to re-elect Trump in 2024 also suggests the public remains unconvinced by their efforts.

7. Insurrection Fallacies

The claim that January 6 represented an insurrection against the United States government rests on a set of rather incredulous beliefs, including that:

• The protesters actually intended to seize the government that day
• The United States can be successfully overthrown by obstructing an official proceeding
• The most powerful government in the world backed by the greatest military in history can be conquered by trespassing and stealing a lectern.

It seems unlikely the protesters actually believed any of the above claims. And while it remains unclear if the Democrat-stacked committee or national news rooms harboured these beliefs, they successfully persuaded the public to adopt them, thus enabling the insurrection narrative to take hold. But in the absence of these fallacies, the entire story falls apart.

8. BLM Riots

Further evidence we have been subjected to propaganda is the staggering difference between public perceptions of January 6 and the Black Lives Matter riots that happened just six months earlier.

Left-wing riots that ran for months, resulted in billions of dollars of damage and involved over 20 murders were cheered on by media figures, celebrities and politicians alike — while a right-wing riot that killed no one and lasted an afternoon was mourned by the same voices as the downfall of democracy.

January 6 was indeed a shameful day for America, but it paled in comparison to the months-long riots that preceded it, and public figures were dishonest for pretending otherwise.

9. Election Fraud

If January 6 protesters were not seeking to overthrow the government, what were they hoping to accomplish at Capitol Hill that day?

The answer is in Trump’s speech: he encouraged his supporters to call on Vice President Mike Pence to delay the certification of the 2020 election results and send them back to the states for further review.

Labelling Trump’s claims about election fraud as “lies” serves the insurrection narrative, but it fails to address the legitimate concerns of tens of millions of Americans.

According to Pew Research, 32% of Americans believe that “widespread illegal voting and fraud” was a major reason for Joe Biden’s election victory in 2020. Another poll from Marist/NPR/PBS found that almost 40 percent of Americans do not trust the results of that election. A Rasmussen poll was even worse, finding that 55% of likely voters believed cheating likely influenced the outcome of the election, with 39% saying it was “very likely”.

It’s not enough to blame Trump for convincing Americans that election fraud occurred. One in five mail-in-voters personally admitted to committing election fraud in 2020, according to a survey sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

Moreover, the states Joe Biden won by the narrowest of margins — just tens of thousands of votes — are also where election irregularities were widely reported. And curiously, Biden managed to lose the bellwether states of Florida and Ohio, along with 18 out of 19 bellwether counties, and still win the election — a statistically implausible outcome.

Finally, the claim that Trump lost almost all his election-related lawsuits obscures the fact that the majority of his cases were dismissed on procedural grounds and were never assessed on their merits.

In summary, while the results of the 2020 election are yet to be thoroughly adjudicated in court, there are enough reasons to suspect significant fraud took place.

10. Agent Provocateurs

In 2020, the left-wing news site The Intercept published a story entitled A Short History of U.S. Law Enforcement Infiltrating Protests. They concluded it is a “historical fact” the FBI and similar agencies regularly infiltrate political movements “using agent provocateurs who urge others to engage in violence”.

Just months after this piece was published, the FBI arrested 13 people who were involved in a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in a story that shocked America. But when the suspects went on trial, the truth came out: at least 12 FBI agents and informants were also involved in the plot. Buzz Feed News published an in-depth report on these events, explaining:

"Some of those informants, acting under the direction of the FBI, played a far larger role than has previously been reported. Working in secret, they did more than just passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them."

For all of the above reasons, many have asked what level of involvement the FBI and other agencies had in the events of January 6. To maintain their insurrection narrative, Democrats and the corporate media have dismissed even the question as a “conspiracy theory”.

But here’s what we do know about the use of undercover agents during the Capitol breach:

• The FBI had so many paid informants at the Capitol on January 6 that it lost track of the number and had to perform an audit to determine exactly how many “confidential human sources” were present that day, according to a former FBI assistant director.
• A man by the name of Ray Epps was caught on camera urging crowds, “We need to go into the Capitol,” and whispering in the ear of a protester who proceeded to knock down barricades. At the time, some Trump supporters suspected he was an agent, even chanting, “Fed, Fed, Fed”. When media outlets began questioning his involvement in the Capitol breach, the FBI immediately scrubbed his photo from the list of January 6 suspects on their website. Only after years of public scrutiny did the FBI pursue Epps. Despite Epps’ prominent role in the riots, he was given just one year probation, while more peaceful protesters were sentenced to years in prison.
• Undercover officers from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department were filmed chanting “our house!” and repeatedly urging protestors to advance up the northwest steps of the Capitol.
• At least 20 different incidents that unfolded on January 6 involved federal, state and local government operatives who infiltrated the crowds, according to in-depth reporting by The Gateway Pundit.
• U.S. Representative for Louisiana Clay Higgins, who served in the military, has extensive experience in law enforcement and criminal investigation, and has access to classified documents through his role on Congressional committees, estimates that there were “well over 200” FBI assets present on January 6, both inside and outside the Capitol Building.

There is still much we don’t know about what happened on January 6. However, the problem with the insurrection narrative is what we do know — whether Trump’s efforts to maintain peace, the prejudiced investigations, the hidden footage, false media framing, or the use of undercover agents.

If you squint really hard, you can vaguely see an insurrection with Donald Trump as its evil mastermind.

But if you open your eyes, the whole narrative fades away.

“Forgive and Forget” — A Pernicious Lie That Undermines Biblical Forgiveness

 

 “Forgive and forget.”

It sounds righteous. Polished. Therapeutic, even. But it is neither biblical nor wise. It’s a toxin, dressed in the garments of virtue — a false teaching born of good intentions, but carrying devastating consequences for both victim and perpetrator. It has crept into Christian culture through the backdoor of Western moral philosophy, not through Scripture, and certainly not from the example of Christ.

Its roots are easy to trace. The modern slogan “forgive and forget” descends more from Enlightenment-era stoicism than from any apostolic source. It gained traction in Western thought through literary and moral circles that prized personal peace over communal righteousness. With time, this maxim was baptized into Christian vernacular — not through the pages of Scripture, but by cultural osmosis. What began as a secular call to move on quietly became a theological half-truth, then a spiritual cudgel.

And what has been the fruit? It has enabled abusers and enslaved victims.

Victims are told to pretend nothing happened — to shove their trauma into a dark closet, lock the door, and call it holiness. They’re taught that remembering pain is bitterness, that acknowledging abuse is unforgiveness. Meanwhile, abusers — often unrepentant — are handed easy absolution, spared the discomfort of confrontation or change.

This is not mercy.
This is moral malpractice.

Forgiveness, according to Scripture, is never about forgetting. It is about facing evil truthfully and choosing not to be ruled by it. God Himself doesn’t forget sin in the modern psychological sense. “I will remember their sins no more” (Isaiah 43:25) means He no longer holds them against the penitent — not that He has wiped the divine memory banks clean. God is omniscient. He doesn’t lose track of history; He transforms it.

He deals with sin directly. He confronts it with full knowledge. And then, through the Cross, He restores what was broken rather than merely punishing what was wrong.

This is the core difference between divine justice and our shallow notions of it. We often think of justice as punishment — as balancing the scales by causing suffering to match suffering. But in the kingdom of God, justice is not retaliation; it is restoration. It is the setting right of what has been twisted. It is the return of dignity to the shamed, wholeness to the shattered, freedom to the bound.

That’s why forgiveness in Scripture is always tethered to repentance. Jesus commands us to forgive — but never without truth. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17:3). Real forgiveness doesn’t deny wrongdoing. It acknowledges it fully, requires a turning from it, and then opens the door to reconciliation. And when reconciliation isn’t possible, it still releases the offended from bitterness — but not from the memory of the offense, and not from the requirement to call evil what it is.

This is critical. Because the lie of “forgive and forget” traps people in moral confusion. It blurs the line between forgiving someone and pretending they never harmed you. And when someone finds they can’t forget — because memory is involuntary — they wrongly assume they haven’t forgiven. Or worse, they are told by others that their inability to forget means they are unspiritual, vindictive, or weak.

That kind of thinking doesn’t come from Christ.
It comes from the Accuser.

And let’s be honest: it often protects the comfortable. Churches, families, and institutions would often prefer an uneasy peace to a painful truth. “Forgive and forget” lets them sweep sin under the rug and call the floor clean. But the Gospel does not trade in cover-ups. It exposes. It convicts. It wounds — then heals.

The Cross is not where God forgot sin. It’s where He met it, in full force, and declared: “This stops here.”

To forgive is not to erase.
It is to remember rightly — and to choose mercy without denying justice.

Forgiveness is not the same as trust. It is not the same as reconciliation. It is not permission. It is not naivety. It is the beginning of restoration, not the end of accountability. And it is never dependent on forgetting.

So let’s stop preaching this lie.

Let’s stop telling victims that healing means silence. Let’s stop telling the wounded to shut their eyes and call it grace. Let’s stop calling denial a fruit of the Spirit.

Instead, let’s return to the truth:
Forgiveness is not forgetting.
Forgiveness is remembering truthfully, responding mercifully, and refusing to be ruled by vengeance.
It is not weakness. It is the strength of Christ crucified.
It is not erasure. It is redemption.
It is not injustice. It is the first act of true justice — the kind that restores rather than merely punishes.

Let us forgive, as God forgives:
Eyes wide open, heart pierced, hands extended, justice fulfilled — and healing begun.

The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople

Background

Despite its condemnation at Nicaea, Arianism persisted and even flourished in parts of the Eastern Roman Empire, particularly under emperors sympathetic to Arian views. For example, Emperor Constantius II (r. 337–361) actively supported Arian bishops and clergy, allowing Arianism to maintain a significant foothold. Various Arian factions, such as the Eunomians (extreme Arians who taught that the Son was entirely unlike the Father) and the Semi-Arians (who sought a middle ground, using terms like homoiousios, "of similar substance"), kept the controversy alive.

The Nicene Creed did not explicitly address the nature of the Holy Spirit. While it affirmed the divinity of the Son, it left room for debate about the status of the Holy Spirit, leading to the rise of heresies like Macedonianism (also called Pneumatomachianism), which denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. These gaps in theological clarity created a need for a more comprehensive articulation of Trinitarian doctrine.

The Church was divided into factions, with different regions supporting different theological views. Some bishops supported Nicene orthodoxy, others favored Semi-Arianism, and still others adhered to extreme Arian or Pneumatomachian positions. This fragmentation weakened the unity of the Church and made it difficult to uphold consistent doctrine.

In 381 AD, Emperor Theodosius I became a strong supporter of Nicene Christianity and sought to restore doctrinal unity within the empire. He called the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople to reaffirm and expand the Nicene faith and to suppress the influence of heretical groups. This provided the Church with an opportunity to address unresolved theological and ecclesiastical disputes. This council wasn’t considered ecumenical at first, but was declared to be ecumenical by the third ecumenical council.

 Maximus the Cynic (also known as Maximus of Constantinople) was a controversial figure from Alexandria. He was trained as a philosopher and earned the nickname "the Cynic" because of his association with Cynic philosophy, a school known for its ascetic lifestyle and disdain for social norms. Maximus gained a reputation as a zealous opponent of Arianism, which likely helped him gain support among orthodox Christians. He positioned himself as an ally of Athanasius, the revered bishop of Alexandria who was a leading anti-Arian figure. This association helped him establish connections within the Church and eventually led him to Constantinople, where he hoped to gain more influence.

After the death of Bishop Paul I of Constantinople in 350 AD, Gregory of Nazianzus was appointed to the see. While Gregory was respected for his theological insight and commitment to orthodoxy, he was unpopular among some factions, particularly due to his association with Cappadocian clergy. Seeing an opportunity, Maximus - with the support of some Egyptian clergy - staged an unauthorized ordination to claim the bishopric of Constantinople. This ordination was carried out secretly at night, which undermined its legitimacy. When the situation became known, it sparked outrage among local clergy and laity. Gregory of Nazianzus and others quickly denounced Maximus’s ordination as illegitimate. The local clergy and people of Constantinople rejected Maximus’s claim to the bishopric, refusing to recognize his authority. Gregory appealed to the Emperor Theodosius I, who upheld Gregory’s position and dismissed Maximus’s claims.

Gregory of Nazianzus himself was ambivalent about his position in Constantinople, feeling alienated and frustrated by the politics of the city. This contributed to his lack of popularity; he was seen as a reluctant bishop who openly expressed his weariness and dissatisfaction with the ecclesiastical environment of the capital.

The Council

The Second Ecumenical Council was convened in May, 381 AD. Meletius of Antioch chaired the council initially.  150 bishops attended, all from the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. The council is often referred to as an "Eastern council" because no Western bishops were present. The Western Church later accepted its decisions, but it was largely a gathering of bishops from the East. The council's purpose was to suppress Arianism, so most Arian-leaning bishops had either been removed from their sees or refused to accept the Nicene faith and were excluded. Notable attendees included:

Meletius of Antioch, the initial president of the council; he died early during the proceedings.

Gregory of Nazianzus, who was Bishop of Constantinople at the time was appointed president after Meletius's death. He was disgusted at the political and theological fighting that took place and resigned both as chairman and bishop during the council.

Nectarius of Constantinoplewas chosen as Gregory’s successor as Bishop of Constantinople and chaired the later sessions of the council.

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem was known for his steadfast support of Nicene orthodoxy.

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria was a key figure in maintaining Nicene orthodoxy in Egypt.

Amphilochius was Bishop of Iconium (in Asia Minor), and a staunch ally of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus (in Cilicia) was a prominent theologian.

Gregory of Nyssa, brother of Basil the Great; Bishop of Nyssa and a leading theologian of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Helladius of Caesarea was the successor to Basil the Great as Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia.

Eulogius, Bishop of Edessa was a defender of Nicene orthodoxy.

Eusebius of Samosata was known for his support of pro-Nicene bishops during the Arian persecutions.

Pelagius, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria.

Flavian of Antioch succeeded Meletius as Bishop of Antioch during the council.

The Refinement of the Creed

The council reaffirmed the Nicene Creed (325 AD) with additions, primarily clarifying the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The creed states (original Nicene creed in italics):

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.

In one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 Canons of the Council

The council issued 7 canons, addressing theological, disciplinary, and ecclesiastical issues.

 Canon 1: Concerning the Faith

The faith of the 318 Fathers assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. Every heresy shall be anathematized, and in particular that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, the Arians or Eudoxians, the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachians, the Sabellians, the Marcellians, the Photinians, and the Apollinarians.

This canon ratifies the canons of the first ecumenical council and shows that this council wasn’t specifically concerning the prevalence of Arianism.

---

Canon 2: Concerning Church Boundaries

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but, according to the canons, the Bishop of Alexandria shall alone administer the affairs of Egypt; the bishops of the East, the affairs of the East only, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, mentioned in the canons of Nicaea, being preserved; and the bishops of the Asian Diocese shall administer the Asian affairs only; and those of the Pontic Diocese, the affairs of Pontus only; and those of the Thracian Diocese, the affairs of Thrace only. But the bishops of the Diocese of Constantinople shall administer the affairs of Constantinople only. And bishops shall not go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. The canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

 This canon reinforced the territorial organization of the Church, emphasizing that bishops should not interfere in dioceses outside their own jurisdiction. It also formalized the privileges of major sees, especially Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria. This organization, along with the third canon, set the stage for the Great Schism to come 700 years later.

---

Canon 3: Concerning the Bishop of Constantinople

The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome.

Because the Roman see was proximate to the Capitol of the empire, it wielded significant influence on legislation and public policy. The Roman Bishop was therefore considered first among equals, although this appellation conferred no authority, and other Bishops granted no fealty to Rome over other sees.  This is evidenced by St. Cyprian of Carthage’s Statement at the Seventh Council of Carthage:

"None of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying; inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and cannot be judged by another, nor is he able to judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our actions."

As the secular seat of power slowly shifted to Constantinople after Rome had been repeatedly sacked by barbarians, Rome’s influence began to wane.  This canon asserts that the See of Constantinople shall be the second most prominent see as a result.

---

Canon 4: Concerning the Election of Maximus the Cynic

Regarding Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has occurred in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus neither was nor is a bishop, nor are those ordained by him in any rank of the clergy whatever; all that has been done by him, or with him, is null and void.

This canon officially resolved the controversy surrounding the elevation of Maximus to Bishop over Gregory of Nazianzus.

---

Canon 5: Concerning Charges Against Bishops

Regarding the charges against bishops, the council decrees that any accusations must be brought before a synod of bishops within the province. Accusers must be trustworthy and not of questionable character.

This addressed a rising problem of unauthorized or irregular ordinations, particularly by bishops who acted outside the established ecclesiastical structure. Bishops were being appointed without the proper consent of the local or provincial bishops, leading to disorder and potential schism. This practice could result in rival bishops being installed in the same area, creating confusion, division, and competing claims of authority. Without a centralized structure, such ordinations could cause serious ecclesiastical and theological confusion within communities. This canon established a process of adjudication by peer bishops should a disagreement occur.

---

Canon 6: Concerning Heretics Returning to the Church

Heretics who wish to join orthodoxy must declare in writing and anathematize every heresy that is not in agreement with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, particularly the Arian heresy, the Eunomians, the Semi-Arians, the Sabellians, the Marcellians, the Photinians, and the Apollinarians.

---

Canon 7: Concerning Converts from Heresy

Those who turn from heresy to orthodoxy and join the portion of those being saved are to be received as follows: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians who call themselves Cathari or Aristeri, Quartodecimans, and Apollinarians are to give a written renunciation of their heresies and anathematize every heresy that is not in agreement with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. They are then to be sealed (confirmed) and taught the creed. Those from the heresy of the Eunomians, who are baptized with a single immersion, or from the Montanists, or from the Sabellians, who teach the identity of the Father and Son, or from any other heresies, especially those named here, must be baptized again.

These last two canons prescribe the process to receive penitent heretics back to the church.

 Conclusion

The Second Ecumenical Council established key doctrines, resolved pressing theological disputes, and strengthened the organizational structure of the Church. Its decisions reverberated through subsequent centuries, shaping both the theological and institutional development of Christianity. The council’s decisions served as a reference point for ongoing theological debates, ensuring that future controversies (e.g., Nestorianism, Monophysitism) were addressed within the Nicene framework. The precedent set by this council helped shape subsequent ecumenical councils, including Ephesus (431 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD), which continued to address heresies and refine theological understanding. However, it also sowed seeds of future conflicts, particularly between the Eastern and Western Churches, underscoring its dual legacy as a unifying and divisive force in Christian history.

 This is part 2 of a 7 part series.  See part 1: The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea

The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea

A popular protestant trope is that Christianity - specifically the Roman Catholic Church - was subverted by the Emperor Constantine in AD 325, and became a Neo-pagan cult. This hogwash began during the Protestant reformation and was promoted for centuries by Protestants to justify their heresy.  Never mind that the Roman Catholic Church from which Protestantism sprang is a far different church than that of the Christian world of 325.  The promoters of this propaganda seem to have never heard of the Orthodox Church.  They got away with this nonsense for so long because there was no readily available history of what actually transpired in the first Council of Nicaea.  Even today, if you try to find details about the council, you'll have a hard time finding a definitive source.  This blog aims to rectify that, and subsequent blogs will detail the other ecumenical councils.

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. The Council of Nicaea met from May until the end of July 325. Before this Council, there had been local synods of Bishops to resolve local problems, but the issue of the Arian heresy was too widespread to be dealt with at a local level.  No Bishop had the authority to call a general council of all of Christendom - sorry, Romans, not even the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pope.  Since the issue threatened the peace of the empire, Constantine exerted his authority to call the council and preside over it, even though he wasn't a Christian at the time.  Constantine's role as chair was non-voting, and he exerted no influence on theological matters.

The council was attended by approximately 318 Bishops. Some names are lost to history, as the record only shows their origin and not their name.  Notable attendees included:

St. Alexander of Alexandria – Patriarch of Alexandria, a leading opponent of Arianism.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria – Deacon and secretary to Alexander of Alexandria, who later became a central figure against Arianism.

St. Eustathius of Antioch – Bishop of Antioch and an outspoken defender of Nicene orthodoxy.

St. Macarius of Jerusalem – Bishop of Jerusalem, who contributed to discussions on church jurisdiction.

Hosius of Corduba – Bishop of Corduba (Spain), representing the Western Church and serving as a close advisor to Emperor Constantine.

Nicholas of Myra – Bishop of Myra (modern-day Turkey), popularly known as St. Nicholas.

Eusebius of Nicomedia – Initially sympathetic to Arian views, he later played a role in promoting semi-Arian ideas.

Eusebius of Caesarea – Bishop of Caesarea, church historian, and theologian who supported a compromise position.

Leontius of Caesarea – Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and a firm opponent of Arianism.

Marcellus of Ancyra – Bishop of Ancyra (Ankara), a staunch anti-Arian who later became embroiled in theological controversy.

Paphnutius of Thebes – An Egyptian bishop known for his asceticism and orthodoxy.

Spyridon of Trimythous – Bishop of Trimythous (Cyprus), noted for his simplicity and wonderworking reputation.

Potamon of Heraclea – Bishop from Egypt and a strong opponent of Arianism.

Aetius of Lydda – Bishop from Palestine.

Theognis of Nicaea – Bishop of Nicaea, initially supportive of Arius.

Paul of Neocaesarea – Bishop from Cappadocia.

Gregory of Bostra – Bishop from Arabia.

John of Persia and India – Bishop of the Persian and Indian regions, representing Eastern Christianity.

Hypatian of Gangra – Bishop from Paphlagonia.

Amphion of Epiphania – Bishop from Syria.

Anthimus of Nicomedia – Bishop of Nicomedia, killed in an earlier persecution.

Menophantus of Ephesus – Bishop of Ephesus.

Patrophilus of Scythopolis – Bishop from Palestine, sympathetic to Arius.

Gaius of Didymoteichus – Bishop from Thrace.

Alexander of Thessalonica – Bishop of Thessalonica.

Longinus of Ashkelon – Bishop from Palestine.

Euphration of Balanea – Bishop from Syria.

Diodorus of Tenedos – Bishop from the island of Tenedos.

Heliodorus of Laodicea – Bishop from Syria.

Theodorus of Perinthus – Bishop from Thrace.

Sabas of Methone – Bishop from Greece.

Nicetas of Remesiana – Bishop from what is now Serbia.

Alexander of Byzantium – Bishop of Byzantium (later Constantinople).

Theophilus the Goth – Bishop from Gothic territories.

Narcissus of Neronias – Bishop from Cilicia.

Secundus of Ptolemais – Bishop from Libya, a supporter of Arius.

George of Laodicea – Bishop of Laodicea, initially sympathetic to Arianism.

Eusebius of Nicomedia – Strong supporter of Arius and influential figure.

Theognis of Nicaea – Supported the Arian cause at Nicaea.

Maris of Chalcedon – Bishop of Chalcedon, supported Arianism initially.

Secundus of Ptolemais – Bishop from Libya and an ally of Arius.

John of Persia and India – Represented Christians from the East.

Theophilus the Goth – Likely from Gothic territories north of the Empire.

Auxentius of Mopsuestia – Bishop from Cilicia.

Germanus of Sirmium – Bishop from Pannonia (modern-day Serbia).

Cyril of Jerusalem – Later Bishop of Jerusalem, though young at the time.

Moses of Khorasan – Bishop from Armenia.

 

The Resolution against Arianism and Establishment of the Creed

Arius’ Teachings: The primary theological issue was the teaching of Arius, a priest from Alexandria, who argued that the Son (Jesus Christ) was not co-eternal with the Father but was created as a subordinate being. This implied that the Son was not truly divine in the same sense as the Father.

Resolution: The council decisively condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father. This established that the Son is co-eternal, uncreated, and fully divine, sharing the same divine nature as God the Father.

The resolution against Arianism is most clearly expressed in the original text of the Nicene Creed that was adopted in 325 AD. This creed was based the creed that was revealed to St. Gregory the Wonderworker and bishop of Neo-Caesarea by the Theotokos and St. John the Apostle. It was more detailed in addressing the Arian heresy and the divinity of Christ. The creed explicitly affirms the Son’s divinity and rejects Arian views by stating that the Son is “of the same essence” (homoousios) as the Father. Below is the specific text of the original Nicene Creed, along with the anathema (a formal condemnation) against Arian beliefs:

The Nicene Creed (325 AD)

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father; through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, becoming human; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into the heavens; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit."

Note that this differs from the Creed we know today.  The second part that we're familiar with was added in the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople.

The Anathema Against Arianism

The Council added an anathema specifically condemning Arian views, which reads:

"But as for those who say, ‘There was when he was not,’ and, ‘Before being begotten he was not,’ and that he came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different essence or substance, or created, or subject to alteration or change—these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes."

Key Points of the Condemnation:

1. "There was when he was not": Rejects the Arian belief that the Son did not exist eternally and was instead created in time.
   
   
2. "Before being begotten he was not": Condemns the idea that the Son did not exist before His generation by the Father.
   
   
3. "Came into existence out of nothing": Denies the claim that the Son was created from nothing, as creatures are.
   
   
   
4. "Different essence or substance": Asserts that the Son shares the same essence (homoousios) with the Father, rather than being of a different, created essence.
   
   
   
5. "Subject to alteration or change": Declares that the Son’s divine nature is unchangeable, opposing the Arian view that He could be mutable.

This text not only refutes Arian claims but also establishes the orthodox Christian teaching of the Son’s eternal and divine nature, unified with the Father, forming the foundation of Trinitarian doctrine.

Establishing the Date of Easter

 Background: There were significant disagreements about when to celebrate Easter, with some communities following the Jewish Passover date (Quartodeciman practice), while others followed a different calculation.

Resolution: The council decided that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox, separating it from the Jewish Passover. This decision was meant to unify the celebration of Easter across the Christian world, establishing a tradition still followed in the Orthodox and Western churches.

Summary of the Decision on Pascha at Nicaea

The council decreed that:

1. Pascha (Easter) should be celebrated on the same Sunday throughout the Christian world to promote unity in observance.
   
   
   
2. Pascha should be celebrated independently of the Jewish Passover (which follows the lunar calendar), as the council wanted to separate Christian practices from Jewish customs.
   
   
   
3. The date would be based on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox. This keeps the celebration close to the Jewish Passover but ensures it will always occur on a Sunday.

Emperor Constantine’s Letter to the Bishops (Eusebius’ Account)

While the council did not record an official canon on Pascha, a surviving letter from Emperor Constantine, as preserved by Eusebius in Life of Constantine, captures the essence of the council's decision:

"It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin … Let us, then, have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd … we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Lord, have wandered in error? … Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have anything in common with those parricides and murderers of our Lord."

This statement from Constantine, which was shared with bishops and communities following the council, reflects the council’s intention to establish a unified celebration of Pascha separate from the Jewish calendar. However, the technical details of calculating the date were not finalized at Nicaea itself; they evolved in subsequent years and through later councils.

So while the council initiated the separation of Pascha from the Jewish Passover and anchored its timing to Sunday following the spring full moon, the exact formula became standardized over time. This decision is why Christians today celebrate Easter independently of the Jewish Passover, using the method based on the Nicene framework.

Today, the Eastern Orthodox Church follows the Julian Calendar and the traditional Paschalion, ensuring that Pascha always falls on a Sunday after the Jewish Passover, in line with this custom that developed after Nicaea rather than from the council itself.

Establishment of the Scriptural Canon 

The Council did not officially address or determine the scriptural canon of the Bible. Although the council tackled major theological issues, particularly Arianism, and established ecclesiastical rules through its 20 canons, no surviving records indicate that the council took formal action on the canon of Scripture.

That said, the bishops at Nicaea were certainly aware of the growing consensus around key scriptural texts. By this time, many Christian communities had begun widely accepting the four Gospels, the letters of Paul, and certain other writings as authoritative. However, the precise content of the New Testament canon was still under informal discussion in various regions of the early Church.

 Some traditions or legends later suggested that the Council of Nicaea determined the books of the Bible, but no historical records support this claim. The Council’s primary focus remained theological doctrine, particularly regarding the nature of Christ, as well as church discipline and liturgical uniformity.

The Canons (Laws or Rulings) of the Council 

Although specifically called to address Arianism, the Bishops took advantage of the council to clarify and standardize the Church's approach to many other lesser issues and questions that arose.

Canon 1, Concerning Eunuchs and Ministry:

"If anyone in sickness has been mutilated by physicians, or if anyone has been castrated by barbarians, let such remain among the clergy. But if anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it is good for such a one, if already enrolled among the clergy, to cease from his ministry, and henceforth not to be advanced. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, they may continue as clergymen in the same condition."

Canon 2, Concerning New Converts:

"Since, either from necessity or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who were instructed but a little while, have been brought at once to the spiritual laver, and as soon as baptized were advanced to the episcopate or the priesthood, it has seemed right to us that for the future no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolic saying is clear, 'Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil.' But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he is convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whosoever shall transgress these enactments will imperil his own clerical position, as a person convicted of disobedience."

Canon 3, Concerning Clerics living with Women:

"The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatsoever, to have a subintroducta in his house, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion."

Canon 4, Concerning Appointment of Bishops:

"It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province; but if this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan."

Canon 5, Concerning Excommunication:

"Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provisions of the canon be observed by the bishops, which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, let inquiry be made whether they have been excommunicated through peevishness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And that this may be duly carried out, it has seemed good that in every province synods should be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may be thoroughly examined into by them, and so that those who have confessedly offended against their bishop may be seen by all to be for a season excommunicated, or that such persons as have been wrongly excluded from communion may be admitted again. And these synods shall be held, one before Lent, that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away, and again in the autumn."

Canon 6, Concerning the Authority of Major Sees:

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if anyone be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three by reason of personal rivalry do oppose the common suffrage of all, which is according to the ecclesiastical canon, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

Canon 7, Concerning the Privileges of Jerusalem:

"Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia (that is, Jerusalem) should be honored, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honor."

Canon 8, Concerning the Reception of the Schismatic Novatians:

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular, that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who have lapsed in persecution, and for whom a time has been fixed, and a season of penance enjoined. So that in all things they may observe the ecclesiastical decrees. Wherever, however, any of these come over, whether they were in villages or in cities, let the Bishop of the Catholic Church have the authority, if he should see fit, to ordain them as he pleases. But if he should not wish to ordain them, then let them give to them the honor of being in the clergy. And those who are not in orders, are not to be ordained. Moreover, those who come over should be rebaptized. But if any have been ordained in an irregular manner, but have otherwise done uprightly in their life, let them be received with the laying on of hands as clergymen of the Catholic Church."

Canon 9, Concerning Unordained Ministers:

"If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have confessed crimes, and men in ignorance of the matter have laid hands upon them, the canon does not admit such persons; for the Catholic Church requires that only such as are blameless should be admitted to the clergy."

Canon 10, Concerning Relapsed Clergy:

"If anyone who has lapsed has been ordained through ignorance or even with knowledge of the fact, this shall not prejudice the canon of the Church; for when he is discovered he shall be deposed."

Canon 11, Concerning Penance for the Lapsed:

"Concerning those who have lapsed without necessity, and without the spoiling of their property, or without danger, or such like circumstances, the Synod decrees that, though they are not to be entirely cast out, yet are they to be dealt with as those who fall under the common canon of penitence. And therefore, to them is assigned a more severe penance, and after this, being found in good works, they may be admitted, if it shall seem fit."

Canon 12, Concerning Lapsed Military Converts:

"As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned like dogs to their own vomit, so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations, let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases, it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and repentance. For as many as give evidence of their conversion by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers, and after that the bishop may determine yet something more favorable concerning them. But those who take the matter with indifference, and who think the form of entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfill the whole time."

Canon 13. Concerning Deathbed Communion:

"Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But if, after he has been thought worthy of communion, and has partaken of the Offering, he be again numbered among the living, let him be placed only among those who communicate in prayers. But, generally, and in the case of anyone in danger of death asking to receive the Eucharist, the bishop shall give it to him."

Canon 14, Concerning Penitential Requirements for Catechumens:

"Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years as hearers only, they shall again pray with the catechumens."

Canon 15, Concerning Restrictions on Clerical Mobility:

"On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that no bishop, presbyter, or deacon shall pass from city to city. And if anyone, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter."

Canon 16, Concerning Disciplinary Transfers:

"If any presbyter or deacon, desiring to withdraw from his own church, entirely abandons it, and goes over to another, let him no longer perform the office of the ministry; especially if he cannot persuade the bishop of the diocese to which he had attached himself, to receive him into communion, he must be content to be admitted only to lay communion."

Canon 17, Concerning a Prohibition on Clerical Usury:

"Forasmuch as many enrolled among the clergy, following covetousness and lust for gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, 'He hath not given his money upon usury,' and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum, the holy and great Synod thinks it just that, if after this decree any one shall be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transactions, or otherwise, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list."

Canon 18, Concerning the Deacon's Role in Eucharist:

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some places and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to those who do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop, and inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or presbyter administer to them. Further, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that order is beyond their authority. And if, after this decree, anyone shall refuse to obey, let him cease from his ministry."

Canon 19, Concerning the Rebaptism of Paulianists:

(Followers of Paul of Samosata were a heretical sect)

"Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them in past time have been numbered among their clergy, if they be found blameless and without reproach, let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church. But if on examination they are found unfit, let them be deposed. Likewise, if any of their clergy shall turn to the Catholic Church, let them in like manner be rebaptized; but if they be not rebaptized, let them be made to renounce their heresy, and afterward let them communicate in prayers with the faithful. In all cases, however, bishops are to be careful that the goods and chattels of the Church are not appropriated to any individual's profit, but that all should remain intact for the Church."

Canon 20, Concerning Kneeling during Liturgy:

"Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere in every parish, it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing."

 Conclusion

There we have it, the declarations and canons of the Council of Nicaea.  Conspicuously absent is any hint of pagan influence.  The church was not restructured, nor the theology revised.  Issues were presented and resolved in the fashion of the Apostles, demonstrated in the Council of Jerusalem detailed in Acts 15. The church wasn't remade according to Augustine, he had no vote in the decisions.

 

Nicaea I was the first of seven councils which clarified the faith in the face of evolving theologies and heresies.