Editing Pelagianism (section)

===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}}