What was unconceivable that St. Augustine explored (that he did not openly admit his fallible understanding on)?
There is abundant literature about it online.http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/bless_aug.aspxhttp://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_reformed.aspxhttp://orthodoxinfo.com/searchresults.aspx?kw=augustinehttp://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.01.htmhttp://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.31.en.augustine.htm
However, Augustine is the unique source of the humorous errors of Barlaam the Calabrian who was accused of heresy by St. Gregory Palamas and was condemned as a heretic by the Councils of Constantinople New Rome held in 1341, 1347 and 1351 for his teaching that God reveals his will to humans by means of creatures which He brings into existence to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non existence when the revelations have been accomplished.
Such revelations have been supposedly recorded in the Bible because preserved by the Biblical writers.
This nonsense cannot be termed a heresy since it is too stupid.
The method he introduced in Christianity never produced anything but errors, Papist's post offering a fine example of it.
c) To know that God is. The bible says that his eternal power and deity are made evident in what he has created. Thus, we can reason to his existence from his creation.
Let us examine the content of the statement:
Fact to be proved: Knowledge on God's existence
Proof used: a) The statement of the Bible, about b) His eternal power and deity c) having been made evident in what He has created
Method of proving: Reason
The problem is that the Knowledge on God's existence cannot
be logically proved if the proof is the saying of the Bible.
If we are to prove the fact "that God is", the Bible cannot have the meaning of the message of God, since we are yet to prove that "God is" at all.
Moreover, even before we have proved it, we are employing some attributes of His, namely "power and deity" in his creation. How does elaborating properties, attributes, of something, the existence of whom/what/which still haven't been proved, can be employed as a proof in a reasonable, logical method?It cannot
. Either the method is not logical, reasonable, or such means can't be used. You can't have both.
All that was achieved is to create blurb in divine message by applying human "wisdom" to build a false proof about what nobody denied in the first place. And upon such, unnecessary conclusions, Anselm went building further, Thomas Aquinas tried to correct but was doom to fail in advance due to the limits of already adopted Papal Theology, Bonaventure added, Albert the Great added...and so on.