Editing Pelagianism (section)

==Later responses==
===Semi-Pelagian controversy===
{{main|Semi-Pelagian controversy}}
The resolution of the Pelagian controversy gave rise to a new controversy in southern [[Gaul]] in the fifth and sixth centuries, retrospectively called by the [[misnomer]] "semi-Pelagianism".{{sfn|Weaver|2014|pp=xiv–xv, xviii}}{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=87}} The "semi-Pelagians" all accepted the condemnation of Pelagius, believed grace was necessary for salvation, and were followers of Augustine.{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=87}} The controversy centered on differing interpretations of the verse [[1 Timothy 2:4]]:{{sfn|Weaver|2014|p=xviii}} "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."<ref>{{bibleref2|1 Timothy|2:3–4|NKJV}}</ref> Augustine and [[Prosper of Aquitaine]] assumed that [[irresistible grace|God's will is always effective]] and that some are not saved (i.e., opposing [[universal reconciliation]]). Their opponents, based on the tradition of Eastern Christianity, argued that [[Augustinian predestination]] contradicted the biblical passage.{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=87}}{{sfn|Weaver|2014|pp=xv, xix, xxiv}} Cassian, whose writings survived, argued for [[prevenient grace]] that individuals could accept or reject. Other semi-Pelagians were said to undermine the essential role of God's grace in salvation and argue for a median between Augustinianism and Pelagianism, although these alleged writings are no longer extant.{{sfn|Weaver|2014|pp=xviii–xix}} At the [[Council of Orange (529)|Council of Orange]] in 529, called and presided over by the Augustinian [[Caesarius of Arles]], semi-Pelagianism was condemned but Augustinian ideas were also not accepted entirely: the synod advocated [[synergism]], the idea that human freedom and divine grace work together for salvation.{{sfn|Weaver|2014|p=xxiv}}{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=87}}

Christians often used "Pelagianism" as a criticism to imply that the target denied God's grace and strayed into heresy.{{sfn|Rackett|2002|p=236}} Later Augustinians criticized those who asserted a meaningful role for human free will in their own salvation as covert "Pelagians" or "semi-Pelagians".{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=79}}

===Pelagian manuscripts===
During the Middle Ages, Pelagius' writings were popular but usually attributed to other authors, especially Augustine and Jerome.{{sfn|Bonner|2018|pp=288–289}}  Pelagius' ''Commentary on Romans'' circulated under two pseudonymous versions, "Pseudo-Jerome" (copied before 432) and "Pseudo-Primasius", revised by [[Cassiodorus]] in the sixth century to remove the "Pelagian errors" that Cassiodorus found in it. During the Middle Ages, it passed as a work by Jerome.{{sfn|Scheck|2012|pp=91–92}} [[Erasmus of Rotterdam]] printed the commentary in 1516, in a volume of works by Jerome. Erasmus recognized that the work was not really Jerome's, writing that he did not know who the author was. Erasmus admired the commentary because it followed the consensus interpretation of Paul in the Greek tradition.{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=92}} The nineteenth-century theologian [[Jacques Paul Migne]] suspected that Pelagius was the author, and [[William Ince (theologian)|William Ince]] recognized Pelagius' authorship as early as 1887. The original version of the commentary was found and published by [[Alexander Souter]] in 1926.{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=92}} According to French scholar {{ill|Yves-Marie Duval|fr}}, the Pelagian treatise ''On the Christian Life'' was the second-most copied work during the Middle Ages (behind Augustine's ''[[The City of God]]'') outside of the Bible and liturgical texts.{{sfn|Bonner|2018|pp=288–289}}{{efn|At the Council of Diospolis, ''On the Christian Life'' was submitted as an example of Pelagius' heretical writings. Scholar [[Robert F. Evans]] argues that it was Pelagius' work, but Ali Bonner disagrees.{{sfn|Bonner|2018|loc=Chapter 7, fn 1}}|name=On the Christian Life}}

===Early modern era===
During the modern era, Pelagianism continued to be used as an epithet against orthodox Christians. However, there were also some authors who had essentially Pelagian views according to Nelson's definition.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=4}} Nelson argued that many of those considered the predecessors to modern [[liberalism]] took Pelagian or Pelagian-adjacent positions on the problem of evil.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=5}} For instance, Leibniz, who coined the word [[theodicy]] in 1710, rejected Pelagianism but nevertheless proved to be "a crucial conduit for Pelagian ideas".{{sfn|Nelson|2019|pp=2, 5}} He argued that "Freedom is deemed necessary in order that man may be deemed guilty and open to punishment."{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=8}} In {{lang|la|[[De doctrina christiana (Milton)|De doctrina christiana]]}}, [[John Milton]] argued that "if, because of God's decree, man could not help but fall ... then God's restoration of fallen man was a matter of justice not grace".{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=7}} Milton also argued for other positions that could be considered Pelagian, such as that "The knowledge and survey of vice, is in this world ... necessary to the constituting of human virtue."{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=11}} [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] made nearly identical arguments for that point.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=11}} [[John Locke]] argued that the idea that "all ''Adam''{{'}}s Posterity [are] doomed to Eternal Infinite Punishment, for the Transgression of ''Adam''" was "little consistent with the Justice or Goodness of the Great and Infinite God".{{sfn|Nelson|2019|pp=7–8}} He did not accept that original sin corrupted human nature, and argued that man could live a Christian life (although not "void of slips and falls") and be entitled to justification.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=8}}

Nelson argues that the drive for rational justification of religion, rather than a symptom of [[secularization]], was actually "a Pelagian response to the theodicy problem" because "the conviction that everything
necessary for salvation must be accessible to human reason was yet another inference from God's justice". In Pelagianism, libertarian free will is [[necessary but not sufficient]] for God's punishment of humans to be justified, because man must also understand God's commands.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=15}} As a result, thinkers such as Locke, Rousseau and [[Immanuel Kant]] argued that following [[natural law]] without [[revealed religion]] must be sufficient for the [[Fate of the unlearned|salvation of those who were never exposed to Christianity]] because, as Locke pointed out, access to revelation is a matter of [[moral luck]].{{sfn|Nelson|2019|pp=16–18}} Early modern proto-liberals such as Milton, Locke, Leibniz, and Rousseau advocated [[religious toleration]] and freedom of private action (eventually codified as [[human rights]]), as only freely chosen actions could merit salvation.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|pp=19–20}}{{efn|This is the opposite of the Augustinian argument against excessive state power, which is that human corruption is such that man cannot be trusted to wield it without creating tyranny, what [[Judith Shklar]] called "liberalism of fear".{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=21}}}}

19th-century philosopher [[Søren Kierkegaard]] dealt with the same problems (nature, grace, freedom, and sin) as Augustine and Pelagius,{{sfn|Puchniak |2008|p=124}} which he believed were opposites in a [[Hegelian dialectic]].{{sfn|Puchniak |2008|p=126}} He rarely mentioned Pelagius explicitly{{sfn|Puchniak |2008|p=124}} even though he inclined towards a Pelagian viewpoint. However, Kierkegaard rejected the idea that man could perfect himself.{{sfn|Puchniak |2008|p=128}}

===Contemporary responses===
[[John Rawls]] was a critic of Pelagianism, an attitude that he retained even after becoming an atheist. His anti-Pelagian ideas influenced his book ''[[A Theory of Justice]]'', in which he argued that differences in productivity between humans are a result of "moral arbitrariness" and therefore unequal wealth is undeserved.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|pp=50, 53}} In contrast, the Pelagian position would be that human sufferings are largely the result of sin and are therefore deserved.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=51}} According to Nelson, many contemporary [[social liberals]] follow Rawls rather than the older liberal-Pelagian tradition.{{sfn|Nelson|2019|p=49}}

The conflict between Pelagius and the teachings of Augustine was a constant theme throughout the works of [[Anthony Burgess]], in books including ''[[A Clockwork Orange (novel)|A Clockwork Orange]]'', ''[[Earthly Powers]]'', ''[[A Vision of Battlements]]'' and ''[[The Wanting Seed]]''.<ref>[https://www.anthonyburgess.org/blog-posts/the-earthly-powers-bookshelf-augustines-confessions/ 'Augustine's Confessions', The International Anthony Burgess Foundation]</ref>

===Scholarly reassessment===
During the 20th century, Pelagius and his teachings underwent a reassessment.{{sfn|Beck|2007|p=694}}{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=80}} In 1956, John Ferguson wrote:
{{blockquote|If a heretic is one who emphasizes one truth to the exclusion of others, it would at any rate appear that [Pelagius] was no more a heretic than Augustine. His fault was in exaggerated emphasis, but in the final form his philosophy took, after necessary and proper modifications as a result of criticism, it is not certain that any statement of his is totally irreconcilable with the Christian faith or indefensible in terms of the New Testament. It is by no means so clear that the same may be said of Augustine.{{sfn|Ferguson|1956|p=182}}{{sfn|Beck|2007|p=694}}}}

Thomas Scheck writes that although Pelagius' views on original sin are still considered "one-sided and defective":{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=80}}
{{blockquote|An important result of the modern reappraisal of Pelagius's theology has been a more sympathetic assessment of his theology and doctrine of grace and the recognition of its deep rootedness in the antecedent Greek theologians... Pelagius's doctrine of grace, free will and predestination, as represented in his ''Commentary on Romans'', has very strong links with Eastern (Greek) theology and, for the most part, these doctrines are no more reproachable than those of orthodox Greek theologians such as Origen and John Chrysostom, and of St. Jerome.{{sfn|Scheck|2012|p=80}}}}