Inheritance: It’s in the Will

Why the Western notion of inherited guilt is untenable and the Eastern understanding of inherited depravity is superior.

RECEIVING an inheritance means taking ownership of the results of someone else’s work, usually someone that one is related to. This is how Wesley viewed original sin. Our original parents committed acts in direct disobedience to God’s command and we, because of their decision or work, inherit the guilt of their disobedience. It isn’t merely the consequences of their actions we inherit (depravity), guilt implies we inherit responsibility for the actions themselves as our very own, or they are imputed to us.

Romans 5:12-21 is a key text on the topic of inherited sin. It compares what is transferred to all humans, as a result of our relationship with Adam, to what is transferred to believers in conjunction with their relationship to Jesus Christ. This belies an inconsistency with Wesley’s theology. For while Wesley understands this passage to teach that humans take ownership of Adam’s acts through guilt, not just the consequences, he at the same time denies that humans take ownership of Jesus acts of obedience, resulting in actual imputed righteousness. The argument of this paper will be that you can’t have it both ways. The inconsistency is resolved in the refinement of Wesley’s theology by later Methodist thinkers that original guilt is not what the text has in mind. Making that case will help us better understand Wesley’s point on exactly what is transferred to believers as result of Christ’s obedience as well.

Let’s first of all analyze some relevant verses from Romans 5. Verse 12 says,

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned”.

Then in verse 19 it says,

“For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”.

According the text, there are two conditions humans inherit as a result of the first sin, one is death and the second is that we were “made sinners”.

What we know from Genesis is that the consequences of disobedience were that humans would experience physical death and they were banished from access to the Garden of Eden. In regard to being “made sinners”, here is what Biblical scholar Dr. Michael Heiser has to say,

“Adam’s sin placed humanity outside the conditions that Adam and Eve enjoyed in the garden. God’s superintending influence and presence in Eden was the primary agent or force that kept Adam and Eve sinless. Once humans were removed from that, they had no hope of not sinning” (Heiser, "Romans 5:12, Part 4").

So, in Heiser’s opinion, humans are “made sinners” by the fact they are barred from access to Divine resources and Divine presence. Everything outside of that sustaining context inevitably progresses towards death, as evidenced in all of nature. Although it isn’t explicitly stated in Romans 5, for the purposes of our argument we will assume death means both physical and spiritual death. Notice, nowhere in either Biblical scenario are we told that humans are deemed guilty because of Adam’s sin, only that we inherit death and are banned from access to Divine resources.

Now let’s look at Wesley’s evaluation of this key text from Romans 5:12. In his Notes on the Bible, Wesley says,

“As by one man - Adam; who is mentioned, and not Eve, as being the representative of mankind. Sin entered into the world - Actual sin, and its consequence, a sinful nature. And death - With all its attendants.” “All sinned - In Adam. These words assign the reason why death came upon all men; infants themselves not excepted, in that all sinned.” In verse 19, Wesley seems to take the federal headship view as establishing our guilt by participating with Adam in disobedience, “As by the disobedience of one man many (that is, all men) were constituted sinners - Being then in the loins of their first parent, the common head and representative of them all” (Wesley, Notes On the Bible).

What We Inherit from Adam - Inability

It is clear that Wesley espoused the notion of original guilt. All humans are guilty with Adam in his disobedience in addition to inheriting original depravity because we were somehow all present in the testicles of Adam. We don’t just inherit the consequences of Adam’s acts, we are guilty of the acts themselves. Never mind the fact that the idea of all humans being consciously present and culpable in the “loins” of some ancestral parent is antithetical to reason and science. Although it is in itself a scriptural idea, Biblical writers can make infallible theological points using flawed, pre-scientific reasoning. The problem we have, however, with the position isn’t the unreasonableness of the illustration, it’s that Wesley is reading his inherited Western/Anglican/Catholic theology into the text, because original guilt isn’t in there.

Original text reference:

Hebrews 7:9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

The inference implies that even infants are born guilty, and by extended association miscarriages, aborted fetuses, and stillborn infants – all of which are without the benefits of baptism, and are thus condemned guilty at death.

This introduces our first problem with original guilt. It begs the question, “do Baptist babies go to heaven?”

Joking aside, this has been a serious theological problem with the original guilt debated for ages. In his book, The Scripture Way of Salvation, Kenneth Collins points out that Wesley took the position that the stain of original sin was removed by infant baptism, and that in line with traditional Anglican teaching, infants are “born again” at their baptism. However, faith and repentance are required for the new birth in those who are of age. And while infant baptism always results in regeneration, with adult baptism, not so much. The atonement of Jesus Christ removes the penalty of original guilt for all humans at conception (“therefore no infant ever was or ever will be sent to hell for the guilt of Adam’s sin”), still yet faith and repentance are requirement for salvation and eternal life for all people who come of age (Collins The scripture way of salvation p. 127-128). Confused? Me too. There are a lot of shells being shuffled here.

Wesley’s proof text for the idea that the atonement of Christ generally removes the guilt of Adam’s sin for all humans and provides initial prevenient grace for all people is found in the Gospel of John 1:9,

“The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.”

Robert Chiles weighs in on this dilemma in his book Theological Transitions In American Methodism. He says,

“occasionally Wesley remarks that no man is doomed to eternal death for the sin of Adam; he does not so restrict its consequences regarding temporal and spiritual death.” Also, “the cancellation of original guilt by the atonement generally seems to be a provisional or emergency measure applicable only to those who die before becoming responsible either for the sin or for the grace that is in them.” Many writers and thinkers on Wesley’s theology in this area, including Chiles, feel that Wesley’s ambiguous and nuanced position on these topics has caused much unending confusion and contention among his followers (Chiles, Theological transition in American Methodism pp. 147-148).

Much of the confusion is unnecessary as a result of being tied to a misguided Western doctrine of original inherited guilt.

A second and possibly more significant problem with the doctrine of original guilt is discovered when we review the doctrine of the atoning work of Christ. As articulated by the Nicene and Chalcedon statements of the early church, the teaching of scripture affirms that Jesus Christ was fully God and full human. Both natures are equally preserved in His being. They necessarily affirm He is without sin. But wait, if Jesus is a fully human son of Adam along with us, which the genealogy of The Gospel of Luke clearly posits, then how is Jesus not born guilty along with us? If all humans inherit Adam’s acts, and with it guilt, then how does Jesus become the sinless propitiation for the sin of all humanity? This is a significant problem.

There are various inadequate ways theologians have tried to work around this conundrum. Michael Heiser summarizes the various arguments within Protestantism well:

“If ALL humans since Adam inherited Adam’s guilt (however that happens), then why does Jesus get off the hook? He is 100% human in biblical theology. His genealogy goes straight back to Adam (see Luke 3:23-38; esp. v. 38). Now, I know what the standard answers are. “Oh, Jesus was God, so he didn’t have original sin.” This avoids the question; it doesn’t answer it: he’s was also 100% human. To deny that is deny the incarnation (It wouldn’t be a real or actual incarnation then). How about “He was virgin born, and we all know that sin is transmitted through the male-after all, Jesus is compared to Adam in Romans 5, not Eve.” Also evasive and poorly thought-through. I would hope it’s clear that all women are also sinners and have original sin. Mary was a woman, and she was the mother of Jesus. There is also no verse in the Bible that says sin is transmitted through only males. Another problem – so, if we cloned a woman and implanted that clone in another woman, would it be sinless since there was no male father? Of course not – to be human is to be under the curse of Adam. But this is a modern illustration of the same logic as theologians use to get Jesus off the hook (i.e., to stiff arm Romans 5:12 when it comes to Jesus). The problem is straightforward: we either assume the full humanity of Jesus or we don’t. The full humanity of Jesus–laid out so clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament–isn’t what’s causing the original sin problem with him; it’s the way we understand original sin and misuse Romans 5:12” (Heiser, "Romans 5:12 – What It Says and What It Doesn’t Say, Part 2").

Let’s look at the Western Roman Catholic strategy to solving the dilemma of inherited guilt. They solve this riddle by teaching the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, that is, that Mary the mother of Jesus was born, by the grace of God, free from original sin. Thus, Jesus in his humanity inherited no guilt or sin of any kind (except for that mortality thing of course, he actually experienced real death on the cross after all). In comparison, while Wesley held to the perpetual virginity of Mary, he never weighed in on the topic of the immaculate conception. However, the United Methodist Church as a denomination does explicitly reject the doctrine (Communications, "What does The United Methodist Church teach about the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth?").

The Catholic solution to the problem fairs no better under scrutiny than the other arguments refuted by Heiser. The immaculate conception is a complete theological fabrication that has no basis in scripture. It is designed to circumvent another theological problem that has no basis in scripture, original inherited guilt. Although the immaculate conception has some support in tradition, though not unanimous, it is scripture itself that is the final judge of our theology.

Look at what is explicitly taught contradicting the idea of inherited guilt in the book of Ezekiel chapter 18:19 -20:

“Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” (This verse is not congruent with the idea of “inherited guilt.”)

To close out this line of thought, The Catholic Encyclopedia states that many early church fathers demurred on the immaculate conception:

“Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii"). In the same manner, St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260). St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum” (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew) ("Immaculate Conception" - The Catholic Encyclopedia).

The Eastern Orthodox Position

In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Church has not had to deal with this controversy due to the fact they do not ascribe to the Western doctrine of original inherited guilt. They have preferred the term “ancestral sin”, but we will be using the term “original inherited depravity.” According to this position, no one is held guilty for anyone else’s sin, which is moral and legal nonsense. In this tradition of thought, each person is only held guilty for the sins they actually commit. And due to original inherited depravity, every person will inevitably at some point become guilty of his/her own conscious sin.

Methodist theologian John Miley articulates both the problem of original guilt and the advantages of original depravity. The problem, as Miley sees it, is in imputing guilt to humans and making them liable to punishment, apart from their responsibility. Depravity, according to Miley, is not punishment but an inheritance based on the law of genetic transmission. The reality and force of depravity is not less because it is inherited rather than inflicted by judicial action. Guilt requires free personal agency, an important component in Miley’s assessment, of remaining consistent from an Arminian perspective and denying Calvinist election and reprobation. Miley viewed this position as a refinement of Wesleyan theology, not a perversion. (Chiles, Theological transition in American Methodism pp. 132-136).

In summary, original inherited depravity is a position that is a more faithful interpretation of scripture.

It is well represented in church tradition, and it is a better fit with Wesleyan-Arminian theology. As a result of original humanity’s sin, all humans inherit mortality or will die both physically and spiritually. We know both Jesus (only partially, He did not inherit spiritual death due to His Divine conception) and Mary suffered at least the consequences of physical death from the fall. In addition to the shared inheritance of death (both spiritual and physical) , all humans have Divine resources withheld from them, both externally and internally, for walking in perfect obedience and fellowship with God. Externally in the sense that we do not live in a perfect environment, we await the reinstitution of that at the Parousia and new creation. Although prevenient grace gives us access to Divine resources in a limited way, until the new birth and the indwelling of the Spirit occurs in our spirit, and the resurrected body transforms our fallen body, all humans will unavoidably become guilty of their own sin and stand in need of forgiveness and redemption.

All humans, including Jesus (again, only partially, He did not inherit spiritual death due to His Divine conception) and Mary, inherit these consequences. Jesus was sinless because He never committed actual sin, and thus never became guilty. In laying aside certain Divine attributes and being united with us in suffering the external consequences of the fall, He overcame all of these negative conditions through His Divine nature and perfect obedience. Newborn babies, still borns, miscarriages, and aborted fetuses are conceived and born fallen, but not guilty until they commit actual sin. Infant baptism is preparatory justification, it is an important means of prevenient grace, but infants are not justified until they need justification by their own demerit, not someone else’s.

What we all inherit is inability. It is poverty of spirit. It is a destroyed moral image of God. Until the new birth and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not only are we unable to not sin, we are unable to do any good. This position represents a more precise definition of original sin in accordance with what scripture actually says, aligns more closely with Wesleyan-Arminian thought, and relieves all of the confusion around what baptism accomplishes in infants and adults alike. As a sacrament and act of obedience, both baptism and communion provide us with additional prevenient grace towards obtaining Divine power to receive the benefits of the atonement. Receiving the sacraments can be a sign of the new birth in believers, or they can function as a means of obtaining it in infants, children, and adults alike.

What We Inherit from Christ – Divine Ability Leading to Glorification

Taking the position that what we inherit from Adam based on Romans 5 is inability as a consequence, not guilt by judicial action, makes one of Wesley’s brightest insights and contributions to the church more consistent with the rest of the passage. Wesley utterly rejects the notion of imputed righteousness inconsistently with the way he embraces imputed guilt. Thus, Wesley speaks of the righteousness of Christ being an “alien” righteousness. Indeed, Wesley fears that embracing this idea will make people satisfied “without holiness at all” (as cited in Williams, John Wesley’s Theology Today pp. 71)

Chiles describes it this way,

“Wesley denies that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness through faith actually makes the sinner righteous. Christ is not righteous in our stead but provides the ground whereby we may become righteous under the power of the divine Spirit. Grace is both pardon and power” (Chiles, Theological transition in American Methodism pp. 154-155).

Here is how Colin W. Williams in his book John Wesley’s Theology Today explains Wesley’s understanding of what we inherit as a result of Christ’s acts,

“in justification we are forgiven, but we are even more aware of how far we fall short of the righteousness of Christ whom we have accepted as Lord. Consequently, our response is to open our lives to his transforming work” (Williams, John Wesley’s Theology Today pp. 71).

Faith and its corollary justification are what opens the door to Divine resources, or ability. Here is Wesley’s note on Romans 5:21,

“the meritorious cause; not any works of righteousness of man, but the alone merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. The effect or end of all; not only pardon, but life; divine life, leading to glory” (Wesley, Notes On the Bible).

It is that “leading to glory” part that points us to the trajectory of this Divine ability. According to Wesley, the grace or power of God is free for all, free to all, and free in all, but to what end? The free gift of grace is initially prevenient or preparatory in nature preparing unregenerate humanity to believe, repent, and be saved. At the new birth grace addresses a different goal which is leading believers toward and preparing them for glorification. It is at this point Wesley’s thinking grows truncated and anemic.

Colin Williams notes that it is clear Wesley was primarily concentrated on the promises of God available to us now, and that conviction has produced amazing results in our understanding of grace. At the same time, Wesley pointed out that the appropriation of these promises is preparatory for the life to come, or eternity (Williams, John Wesley’s Theology Today pp. 199). But in what sense? We have little detail on Wesley’s thinking in this area. Kenneth Collins offers us a few crumbs in his book The Scripture Way of Salvation. For instance, Collins points out Wesley believed the design of humans was to enjoy God in both time and eternity. Collins also alludes to a fuzzy understanding by Wesley of a “second justification”, apparently referring to the judgement seat of Christ at the end of the age, a justification based on our works in this life determining whether we get into heaven or not (Collins The scripture way of salvation p. 191-198).

It is at this point both Wesley and his successors up to the present time have left much unfinished work. Wesley viewed the message of full sanctification, or perfection, or holiness as the very reason God raised up the people called Methodists. Sanctification ultimately results in glorification in our ladder of salvation. Wesley was correct in focusing on a theology of grace and growing in the love of God, that is precisely what prepares us for the next life. But in regard to our thinking on the next life, we need to finish the work. It is the ultimate conclusion of our theology.

The idea of a so called “second justification” is highly problematic. Are we justified before God based upon Christ’s righteousness or our own? God help us all if it’s our own. And if we are justified before God at some second justification exactly what is the measuring rod for acceptance? I think we might need to know that, but all we have in scripture are verses like 2 Corinthians 5:21,

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”.

There is only one way we get into heaven, trusting in the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone, and a willingness to turn and follow Him. There is only one thing that gets us condemned to Hell, rejecting the leadership of Jesus Christ and refusing to obey Him. Our sin was penalized and judged at the cross, period. There is no second judgement for sin or justification for believers (John 3:18; 5:24; 6:37; Rom. 5:1; 8:1; 1 Cor. 11:32). The judgement seat of Christ for believers is clearly about rewards and rank, not justification.

I will quote extensively from Dr. Samuel Hoyt in regards to what scripture teaches about the judgement seat of Christ for believers:

Both Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:9 speak of the “judgment seat.” This is a translation of one Greek word, the word bema. While bema is used in the gospels and Acts of the raised platform where a Roman magistrate or ruler sat to make decisions and pass sentence (Matt. 27:19; John 19:13), its use in the epistles by Paul, because of his many allusions to the Greek athletic contests, is more in keeping with its original use among the Greeks.

This word was taken from Isthmian games where the contestants would compete for the prize under the careful scrutiny of judges who would make sure that every rule of the contest was obeyed (cf. 2 Tim. 2:5). The victor of a given event who participated according to the rules was led by the judge to the platform called the Bema. There the laurel wreath was placed on his head as a symbol of victory (cf. 1 Cor. 9:24-25).

In all of these passages, “Paul was picturing the believer as a competitor in a spiritual contest. As the victorious Grecian athlete appeared before the Bema to receive his perishable award, so the Christian will appear before Christ’s Bema to receive his imperishable award. The judge at the Bema bestowed rewards to the victors. He did not whip the losers.” We might add, neither did he sentence them to hard labor.

In other words, it is a reward seat and portrays a time of rewards or loss of rewards following examination, but it is not a time of punishment where believers are judged for their sins. Such would be inconsistent with the finished work of Christ on the Cross because He totally paid the penalty for our sins (Hoyt, "The Doctrine of Rewards: The Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ").

Look at what the Apostle Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15,

“If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames”.

The concept is clearly taught in scripture that what is being judged isn’t our justification before God but what rewards for which we qualify in eternity.

It is surprising Wesley didn’t have more to say about this, neither his successors, given the fact Wesley spent so much time preaching the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew 5-7 (13 of his 50 some odd standard sermons considered authoritative doctrine for Methodists are from these chapters). In Matthew 5:19 Jesus teaches,

“Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven”.

This is just one of several verses the concept of inheritance and rewards shows up in this critically important teaching from Jesus.

Look at what Jesus teaches in the Beatitudes, Matthew 5:5,

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”.

First, it is the meek who inherit, or take ownership of something that belongs to someone else. Why? The meek are those who have shown by consistent choosing that they are willing to let someone else be in control of their lives. They are willing to allow their strengths to be harnessed by another in order to be used, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others.

What do they inherit? The earth, literally. The blessed hope of the church is the return of Jesus Christ. To where? To the earth. Our destiny is His bodily return to the earth, our resurrection from the dead in new bodies to live on the earth with Him for all eternity. The Sermon on the Mount is described as the gospel of the kingdom. A kingdom is a form of government, period. It is the government, along with all the activities of a government, by which the earth, maybe even the universe, is ruled. The meek are elevated to positions of leadership in this government precisely because they have proven through a lifetime of service they are trustworthy and resistant to the temptations of self-interest. The picture of scripture from Genesis to Revelation is a global, eternal, earthly kingdom with a myriad of differing activities, populated and run by a myriad of glorified people of differing privileges, resources, and abilities. And God is painting the picture and asking the question throughout scripture, “believer, where do you want to stand in the midst of this glorious project?”

Jesus teaches in Matthew 19:27-30,

“Then Peter said in reply, "See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Now there is an incentive for perfection that doesn’t involve the fear of hell or punishment or a need for a second justification. What we inherit positively, as a result of being merited righteous before God through believing loyalty to Jesus Christ, is Divine ability. The result being to receive full access to the power of the Holy Spirit, by which we become men and women who experience growth in the Christian life to become exalted human beings in God’s eternal kingdom. 2 Peter 1 says it like this,

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature”.

The trajectory of where this line of thought takes us is remarkable! While the implications of this concept makes many Protestant Christians uncomfortable, it does have broad representation in church tradition, most notably in the Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis, which is very similar to the Wesleyan idea of Christian perfection and glorification. Early church father Athanasius (among many other fathers of the early church) described it like this,

“God became man so that men might become gods”.

If you would prefer a more recent authority in the American evangelical church world, I conclude this train of thought with an excerpt from C. S. Lewis:

The command “Be ye perfect” is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creatures, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to Him perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said. (Lewis Mere Christianity, p. 174)

The painful, difficult process Lewis describes requires inexhaustible resources of Divine power and stamina. Divine resources, which believers have access to through the righteousness of Jesus Christ and participation in the devotional and sacramental life of the church. That is our inheritance, it’s in the will. And our will needs to be energized with this information, presented with more clarity, to plow through the muck of life toward glory. Because even though it is long and hard, it is totally going to be worth it.

---

Bibliography

Chiles, Robert. E. (1983). Theological transition in American Methodism: 1790-1935. Lanham (Md.): University Press of America.

Collins, Kenneth J. The scripture way of salvation: the heart of John Wesley's theology. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997. Print.

Communications, U. M. (n.d.). What does The United Methodist Church teach about the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth? Retrieved May 12, 2017, from http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-does-the-united-methodist-church-teach-about-the-immaculate-conception

Heiser, Michael, Dr. (n.d.). Romans 5:12 – What It Says and What It Doesn’t Say, Part 2. Retrieved May 12, 2017, from http://drmsh.com/romans-512-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesnt-say-part-2/

Heiser, Michael, Dr. (n.d.). Romans 5:12, Part 4. Retrieved May 11, 2017, from http://drmsh.com/romans-512-part-4/

Hoyt, Samuel., Dr. (n.d.). The Doctrine of Rewards: The Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ. Retrieved May 13, 2017, from https://bible.org/article/doctrine-rewards-judgment-seat-bema-christ

Immaculate Conception. (n.d.). The Catholic Encyclopedia, Retrieved May 12, 2017, from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity. New York: MacMillan Pub. Co.

Wesley, John. (n.d.). John Wesley's Notes on the Bible, Wesley Center Online. Retrieved May 11, 2017, from http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/notes-on-st-pauls-epistle-to-the-romans/#c5571

Williams, Colin W. John Wesley’s Theology Today. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1960. Print.

---