Did the Councils of Hippo & Carthage believe Esdras to be inspired? (Response to Steve Christie)

Protestant apologist Steve Christie, who goes by BornAgainRN on Youtube, claims that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage endorsed the book of Esdras as part of inspired Scripture, which is a book neither Catholics nor Protestants accept as inspired Scripture. Steve makes this claim because he thinks that by doing so it undermines the Catholic appeals to these early Councils since these Councils endorse the "larger canon" of Scripture (i.e., Sirach, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith, etc). While Steve's argument doesn't automatically refute Catholicism, since the canon of Scripture had to be clarified over time, it is still slightly inconvenient since clear historical testimony is always a good thing to have on your side. 

Here is what Steve said in his YouTube video on the matter (slightly edited for readability):

BornAgainNR: My argument is that Hippo and Carthage included Esdras and [combined] Ezra-Nehemiah as the "two books of Esdras" (which is simply the Greek and Latin word for “Ezra”), is based on the fact that Augustine in his work “City of God” entertains the possibility that chapters 3-4 in Esdras are indeed prophesying about Christ. Augustine would not even entertain the possibility this is prophesying about Christ unless he believed these 2 chapters of Esdras are scripture FIRST. Considering Augustine was a member of these two late fourth century church councils of Hippo and Carthage, 25 years earlier, he would know if this book was in these councils or not. Yet, he believes 25 years later this book and these 2 chapters of Esdras are scripture. This demonstrates this book was one of the two books of Esdras in these two councils.

In short, Steve claims that when the Councils of Hippo and Carthage gave their canonical list of Biblical Books, when these councils said that there were "two books of Esdras," this specifically meant that the Councils were saying Ezra+Nehemiah were counted as one combined book at that time, and that Esdras (sometimes called 3rd Ezra/Esdras) was the second of the "two books". The Councils often spoke in terms of "two books of Kings" and such, so it was not uncommon for multiple books to be combined. Steve's argument and his proof is that since in Augustine's cites Esdras ch3-4 in his book City of God as likely a prophecy of Jesus that this means Augustine held Esdras to be inspired Scripture, and thus Augustine's Councils must have also held this.

The true identy of the Nephilim

I am not sure if anyone has talked about this, but I think I have discovered (at least to my knowledge) the "true identity" of the Nephilim famously mentioned in Genesis 6. The long-standing debate on Genesis 6:1-8 is whether the "Sons of God" are fallen angels who mated with women or if the "Sons of God" are the godly lineage of Seth mentioned in Genesis 5. Those who hold to a fallen angels interpretation generally hold that the Nephilim are these giant beings who are angel-human hybrids. Those who hold to the "godly lineage of Seth" view (defended famously by St Augustine) usually push back and say angels as spirit beings cannot have flesh relations with humans, and thus the godly lineage of Seth makes the most sense given that the world was described here as turning completely wicked and thus the flood (Deluge) was now necessary. (Note: Antediluvian means the world before the Deluge, before the Flood.)

But what about the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4? In my research, there are three possibilities popularly put forth: (a) the Nephilim are angel-human offspring, thus making them "giants" (Greek) or "fallen" beings (Hebrew), depending on how you understand the mysterious term; (b) the Nephilim are the wicked human offspring from the intermarriage between the righteous and the pagans; or (c) the Nephilim are some other race or being who were famous at that time, possibly just tyrannical kings or very tall giants like Goliath, or possibly fallen angels who manifested as the ancient Greek gods who were then enshrined into pagan mythology. This post will discuss why none of these options fit the evidence and thus I will reveal a "new" possible identity of the Nephilim, which I've not yet seen anyone mention. 

I think the best place to begin our look into this is looking at the text of Genesis 6:1-8,

Why was Paul not sent to Baptize but to Preach? (Protestants misuing 1 Cor. 1:17)

A popular example of "Protestants behaving badly" that usually comes from those of the Baptist or Non-Denominational groups of Protestants is when they seem to think it's better to denigrate Baptism than to concede it does anything salvific. This is known as the fallacy of "cutting off your nose to spite your face," where someone mistakenly thinks that an argument against their opponent is "worth it" even if that same argument ultimately undermines their own position as well. In this case, a favorite "proof text" against Baptism as "necessary for salvation" is for these folks to point to 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, where Paul says: "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius... for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel..." These Protestants will allege that Paul is saying baptism is not important, even non-essential to salvation, because preaching and believing are what really matter, and that thus Baptism must not be that important. But is that really what Paul is alleging? I will show why this is absolutely the worst interpretation one can have. 

We will begin by looking at the full passage:

Is Romans 7 about life as a Christian?

I was involved in a Calvinist/Reformed discussion on Romans 7, specifically discussing whether Paul in Romans 7 is speaking of himself as a "Christian struggling with sin" versus whether Paul here is speaking of his former life as an  "unconverted Jew". Biblical commentators have argued both as possible readings, but generally the Protestant side (especially Reformed and Lutheran) comes down strongly on the "Christian struggling with sin" reading of Romans 7. While that Protestant reading is understandable, I think it is a very problematic and inferior to the more likely "unconverted Jew" interpretation of Romans 7. This might not seem like an important debate, but I think we really need to care what Paul actually wants to teach us in Romans, and we should care if certain agendas are causing us to read Paul incorrectly in order to prop up erroneous theological ideas.  

Before delving into the text, it is important to affirm that everyone agrees that the Christian life involves an inner battle with one's flesh, which Paul speaks of elsewhere (e.g. Romans 6; Galatians 5:16-24). After we delve into the actual text and do actual exegesis, I will then share why I suspect the Reformed/Lutherans are trying so hard to hold to their reading.

The 2nd Commandment does not apply to Icons

The most common objection that Protestants use against Catholics for venerating images of God and of the Saints is for Protestants to appeal to the Ten Commandments [1], specifically the 2nd Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5), which seems to plainly prohibit the making and venerating of any religious images. While this Biblical appeal might seem to be an open and shut, slam dunk against Catholicism, it actually contains a very problematic and erroneous approach to the Old Testament, which Saint Paul termed "Judaizing" in Greek (Gal 2:14). The reason why people fail to recognize this is because Protestantism was founded upon an erroneous, even Judaizing, approach to the Mosaic Law. I think it is worth bringing this up because too many times I've seen Catholics basically accept this very Protestant Judaizing premise behind their use of the 2nd Commandment, which is the real issue that needs to be exposed.

Before we can even look at the 2nd Commandment itself, the first critical thing to know is that the term "Law" for Paul absolutely means the Mosaic Law, whereas Protestants erroneously think "Law" means anything man is ever told to do (e.g. any work a man does). I have exposed this many times in past blog posts and in discussions, particularly how the Protestants failing to define "Law" properly is a main reason they completely misunderstand Paul and salvation. (e.g. HERE). 

To build in this point, it is critical to know that the Mosaic Law was also known as the Mosaic Covenant (what Christians call the "Old Covenant"), and that the Ten Commandments were literally the very core of the Old Covenant. I think Hebrews 9:5 captures this very well, practically calling these basic truths everyone already knows: 

1 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. 2 For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, 4 having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. 5 Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. 

Note how the Ten Commandments were called "the tablets of the covenant" and thus were put inside the Ark of the Covenant. Knowing this basic theological truth is critical. I show this plainly elsewhere as well (e.g. HERE with Deut 9:9). Once a person recognizes this solid link between the Mosaic Law and Ten Commandments as the Old Covenant, it sets us up to be forced to admit that when the Old Covenant was done away with at the death of Christ on the Cross, that also means the Ten Commandments as a Binding Legal Code-Covenant was also done away with as a strict "letter of the law" requirement for Christians.