4- PELAGIANISM (the Pelagians) : The next great heresy in the church was Pelagianism. This error returned to the issue of soteriology. It is a fact of history that every major error that has ever assaulted the Christian faith fits under one or both of two categories: they are either hristological or soteriological. Other forms of error have arisen, but all the truly dangerous heresies have attacked on one or both of these two fronts.
Pelagianism represented a different gospel of the most sinister kind. The first major proponent and the man who lent his name to this doctrine was Pelagius. His main opponent was Augustine. The conflict between Pelagius and Augustine involved some of the very same issues Calvinists and Arminians argue over, and the history of this heresy shows how vitally important those issues are. Pelagius was motivated by a concern to elevate human free will, because he was (wrongly) convinced that was the only way to preserve human responsibility.
Augustine defended the sovereignty of God, because he (rightly) knew that was the only way to preserve the centrality of divine grace in salvation.
5- SOCINIANISM (the Socinians) : Socinianism is the culmination of heresy—an amalgamation of all the other heresies—and it is without a doubt the most widespread of all the heresies in our generation. Modern theological liberalism is nothing more than a variety of Socinianism.
Since they rejected everything Catholic, the Socinians ended up with a doctrine that embraced virtually every serious error that had ever assaulted the church. Like the legalists and the Pelagians, they taught works-salvation. Like the Gnostics and the Arians, they were anti-Trinitarians.
In fact, they denied not only the deity of Christ but also every miraculous element of Scripture. They blended the skepticism of the Sadducees with the humanistic rationalism of the enlightenment era, and that deadly combination is what gave birth to this heresy. Then they threw in the error of universalism to boot.
In effect, Socinianism did away with the authority of Scripture and made human reason the supreme authority. Worst of all, they destroyed the meaning of the atonement. The Socinian argument against substitutionary atonement was simple: They claimed that the ideas of remission and atonement are mutually exclusive. They said sins can either be forgiven or they can be paid for, but not both. If a price is paid, they said, sins are not really “forgiven.” On the other hand, the Socinians argued that if God is willing to pardon sin, then no atonement-price should be necessary.
The subtlety of that argument still confuses many people. But it is completely contrary to what Scripture teaches about grace, atonement, and divine justice. Hebrews 9:22 demolishes the Socinian argument: “Without shedding of blood [there] is no remission [of sins].”
If we learn anything from church history, we ought to see how vital biblical discernment is, and we ought to understand how destructive such errors can be. Above all, we ought to gain an appreciation of how courage, persistence, and biblical skill are required to defeat the devil’s doctrines.
