Summer 2011

Is Hell a Vital Doctrine?

Theology professor Ashish Naidu on the afterlife and why it's essential to believe that 'love warns'

This spring, evangelical megachurch pastor Rob Bell caused a firestorm of controversy when he released his new book — Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. The book, which questions much of the traditional Christian teaching on hell, sparked extensive debates about the doctrine of hell and landed the topic on the cover of Time magazine with the cover headline: “What If There’s No Hell?” 

Biola Magazine recently sat down with Ashish Naidu, assistant professor of theology at Talbot School of Theology, to discuss the biblical case for hell and how Christians can respond to some of the current challenges to the doctrine.

How central is the doctrine of hell for Christianity? Is it “essential” or “nonessential”?

I would think it’s an essential doctrine. Look at what the Bible has to say about hell, and look at Jesus. Jesus was perhaps the most prolific teacher on the doctrine of hell. Historic Christian orthodoxy has always maintained the doctrine of hell. If you go back to the earliest creeds — the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed — they all talk about Christ returning to judge the living and the dead. If I remember correctly, the word “hell” occurs 12 times in the Gospels, 11 of which are from the lips of our Lord. So definitely, the doctrine of hell is central to the Christian faith, and always has been.

What is the standard view of hell within orthodox Christianity?

The orthodox position affirms an eternal, conscious torment for all those who reject Christ and reject the gospel message. That has been the wide swath of orthodoxy right from the get go. The historic Christian faith has always affirmed the eternality of life for those who believe in Christ and the eternality of death for those who disbelieve or reject him.

“Annihilationism” seems to be increasingly accepted as a view of hell within evangelicalism. Is this a biblical position?

There have been individuals within the broad evangelical community who have subscribed to this view of annihilationism, which basically is the idea that the unbeliever will be tormented for a particular amount of time in hell but will eventually be terminated or annihilated. It’s the idea that fire destroys and brings things to an end — to ashes. It’s the idea of conscious, but not eternal torment. I’m not quite sure if there’s any biblical basis for this. From what I’ve seen and what I’ve read, the problem seems to be more existential, more emotional than scriptural and textual. Annihiliationism is held by some theologians in the church — Clark Pinnock, Edward Fudge — but to be honest, textually speaking I’m not quite sure how they can affirm this.

What is the biblical evidence for the eternality of hell?

In Matthew 25:31-46, you’ll notice that Jesus uses the same adjective to talk about eternal life and eternal punishment. So if life in Christ is going to be eternal, then life without Christ is also going to be eternal. Look how Matthew 25:46 puts it: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." The Bible is replete with mention of everlasting punishment for those who would reject Christ. In Mark 10:29-30, Jesus responds to Peter by saying: "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.” So when Jesus talks about eternal life he’s talking about everlasting life—something that will go on forever. I’ve noticed that, very famously, Rob Bell has argued that the word “eternal” does not necessarily mean eternal life. There’s plenty of evidence in scripture that argues to the contrary. That’s a very selective reading of scripture and selective way of exegeting scripture.

Has evangelicalism emphasized hell too much?

I think in a regular church we subscribe to an expository method of preaching, and so when the doctrine of hell comes up, you’re supposed to preach it. Preaching about hell can be a very loving thing to do, because love warns. Jesus warned about the impending judgment that is to come. When you and I speak or preach about hell, we don’t do it with dry eyes. We do it with urgency in our hearts, so that others would hear the good news of the gospel. You don’t have to go to hell. Love warns. Warning people of an impending act of judgment is a loving thing to do.

But I do understand the other aspect of the question — that we have preachers who are constantly preaching hellfire and brimstone messages from the pulpit, with no emphasis on the idea of the love of God. So there are instances where that can be a problem.

One of Bell’s claims in Love Wins is that after death, unbelievers will have another chance to accept Christ — that our life on earth isn’t the only chance to be saved. Are there any grounds for this belief in the Bible?

Bell has selective exegesis here. He likes to use Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1—where God talks about reconciling all things. But if you look at the writings of Paul, both in Colossians and Ephesians, he also talks about the wrath of God coming upon the disobedient. Paul is very clear about his teaching on hell. When the Bible talks about reconciliation in those contexts it is talking about all of creation submitting itself to the lordship of Christ, the obedient for his blessing and the disobedient for his curse. He came as a savior. He came to offer salvation the first time around. When he returns he is going to come back as a king and judge. That is the context of Ephesians 1. It’s not that God is going to give second chances to people after they die. The Bible is very clear on this. The writer of Hebrews 9 says it is appointed once for man to die, and after that, judgment.

In the chapter “Does God Get What God Wants,” Bell claims: “Reconciliation brings God glory; endless anguish doesn’t.” How does an eternal hell bring God glory?

I think when we talk about the love of God, we also talk about God loving his character, his nature, his infinite perfections. And of course, his character is reflected in the law of God. The law reflects his infinite goodness, love and mercy. So when people break the law of God, they’re breaking the very moral code that God gave us, which is a reflection of his infinite goodness. Scripture very clearly says that when the law is broken, the penalty must be paid. The soul that sins must surely die.

God is doing the most loving thing when he sent his son Jesus and offers us salvation. He’s saying, “Here’s my son: Receive him, so that you might have life and so that you may not enter hell.” Hell brings glory to God because it basically is a reflection of the fact that he takes sin seriously. He can’t overlook sin or brush it under the carpet. It brings glory to his name because God upholds the infinite justice of his character. And to do that is the most loving thing to do. Hell points to the fact that God means what he says and will do what he promised.

In a recent Time cover story on hell, Jon Meachem wrote that “the dominant view of the righteous in heaven and the damned in hell owes more to the artistic legacy of the West, from Michelangelo to Dante to Blake, than it does to history or to unambiguous biblical teaching.” Is this true? How much of our concepts of heaven and hell are cultural rather than biblical?

Long before Dante and Michelangelo depicted what they thought about hell, the Bible taught it, going back all the way to Genesis. Fire has long been associated with God’s judgment. We think of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how God reigned down sulfur and brimstone on the city for its wickedness. The idea of fire is always associated with the judgment of God in the Bible, and that’s how the Renaissance artists get the picture. It’s not something they’re making up out of thin air. Fire and judgment is a biblical picture. 

If we believe that hell is a place reserved for any non-Christian to eternally suffer, then we would have to say that both Gandhi, and Hitler, and the millions of Jews that Hitler murdered, are all in hell, right?

There’s definitely an existential edge to that question. At the end of the day, we know that we’re dealing with a just God, a loving God, a God who is our heavenly Father. That’s why we don’t view his sovereignty as tyrannical. We also see clearly the way that people are saved. There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Jesus is the only way. There have been many people who have considered Christ a great moral teacher, but haven’t confessed him as Lord. And I think as believers we have to be faithful to Scriptures that say that anyone who has not confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will not get to spend eternity with him.

Do you think it’s ever wise for Christians to make statements about who is or isn’t in hell?

I think we should be very careful if we are going to speak in those terms, because at the end of the day, you and I do not have infinite knowledge. Could it be possible that some of the Jews in the Holocaust turned to Christ before they were executed? It could have happened. We just don’t know.

What if I’m a good Muslim who, because I was born into an Islamic culture and context, simply followed that religion as earnestly and faithfully as possible, because it’s what my family taught and I didn’t know any different?

God is sovereign. We know that the story of our salvation does not begin on this earth, but in eternity with Christ. God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. So God knows how to communicate the message of the gospel to people out there. Look at my own story. Born into a Hindu family. Several generations ago, my great-grandparents came from the Hindu priesthood, idolaters. Then in the late 1800s, British missionaries came to India and converted them. I see God’s sovereignty there. He sent the messengers with the gospel, and in the gospel proclamation my ancestors received the message and were converted. Likewise, I see and hear stories of individuals in the deepest and remotest Muslim nations where the gospel message is proclaimed and people receive it.

One of the things we say in this is that the seeker finds out that he is sought. InThe Pursuit of God, A.W. Tozer really captures this. There is a longing for God that we all have. Before I became a believer, I thought I was the one seeking after God, only to realize after reading Scripture that it was God seeking me — the “Hound of Heaven.” At the same time, I do understand that not everyone hears the gospel. That’s why it’s our task as Christians to obey the Great Commission and to take the message of the gospel to the ends of the earth. It’s a serious calling. We cannot afford to neglect it.

What happens to unsaved children when they die? Or an individual lacking the mental capacity to understand the gospel?

There have been two views historically on this topic. One view basically says, only the children of the elect, of believers, will go to heaven, because of the covenantal structure they hold to. But I hold to the second view, which states that all children and infants who die are actually elect. All children will go to heaven. The Bible is very clear about the loving heart of God and Jesus’ relationship with children. Jesus himself takes a child and puts him in his lap and says “Forbid not the little children come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven.” We can also look at David, who, after his little son died, said, “I will see him again.” I’m of the opinion that infants who die are elect and will have life eternal with God. Same thing for people who are mentally challenged — adults who are operating on a child’s mental level. In these cases I think there is good biblical support for the idea of the grace of God and the age of accountability. Though this phrase doesn’t occur, I think we can extrapolate this teaching from Scripture.

Ashish Naidu is an assistant professor of theology at Biola’s Talbot School of Theology, specializing in historical and systematic theology. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen.


Subscribe to Comments


  • dennis swick July 7, 2011 at 11:21 AM

    can i have permission to translate this in spanish, with your website, and put it at ?

    God bless,

  • Biola Magazine July 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM

    Dennis- Yes, that would be fine, as long as you include a mention that the article was originally published in Biola Magazine. Thank you!

  • Edward William Fudge July 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM

    My sincere appreciation to the Biola Student Chapel Association that sponsored the May 16 debate whether hell is a place of unending conscious torment (advocated by Talbot/Biola Professor John McKinley) or a place of total, irreversible annihilation (my position). No one who attended that debate, and no one who reads THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES (Wipf and Stock, 3rd edition, 442 pages, 2011, foreword by Richard Bauckham), could possibly say, as Professor Ashish Naidu does here, that he is "not quite sure if there’s any biblical basis" for annihilationism. Professor Naidu thus argues that hell is an "essential" doctrine, while pleading ignorance of the biblical texts that turned Clark Pinnock and Edward Fudge from traditionalism to annihilationalism, as well as Aberdeen's long-time professor I. Howard Marshall and many others who could also be named.

  • Michael J. McLaughlin, MDiv July 9, 2011 at 8:38 AM

    To Edward William Fudge -
    Would you be willing to state in a few points, what you understand to be the biblical basis for your view that "hell" is the total, irreversible annihilation? You have to believe that if it takes 442 pages of your book to make your case, it will not be read by the masses, or even by a majority of serious Christian educators. You make that point in your comment above as not even Professor Naidu had read it, or perhaps had not even perused it. So, point us in a direction that you think will take the serious student/scholar to your conclusion on the doctrine of hell.
    Thank you.
    Michael McLaughlin, MDiv

  • Curtis Cook July 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM

    I'm not arguing Dr. Fudge's position t; I just find it ironic that he posted his comment on the 170th anniversary of Jonathan Edwards' sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" at Enfield, Conn.

    He should just take up his argument with Jesus, Himself in Matthew 25:46.

  • Curtis Cook July 11, 2011 at 4:15 PM

    Sorry folks, that's 270th anniversary, not 170th.

  • Brad Jackson July 13, 2011 at 10:38 AM

    I find Prof. Naidu's response to the questioners inquiry, "How does an eternal hell bring God glory?" to be seriously lacking. His reasoning doesn't at all negate the Conditionalist view of hell, but can mostly be said regardless of whether one is in the Traditionalist or the Conditionalist camp. I said "mostly" because I find it striking that he thinks he can say that eternal hell (in the traditional view) upholds the infinite justice character of God and that God's giving His Son are both "the most loving thing" --- either one is the most loving or the other is, not both. Even Jesus didn't try that non-starter argument when asked which Law was the most important (i.e., to love the Lord your God is first and the second is like it, loving your neighbor as yourself --- but it's still second). While perhaps that's what Prof. Naidu was similarly intending to convey, it seems all too often Traditionalists refuse to scrutinize their own words, arguments and positions as carefully as they do non-traditionalists' claims.

  • Edward William Fudge July 26, 2011 at 3:09 PM

    TO MR. McLAUGHLIN -- One would hope, sir, on the recommendations of scholars such as F.F. Bruce, John Wenham, John Stott, Philip E. Hughes, Michael Green, N.T.Wright, John Stackhouse, John Franke, and Richard Bauckham, that serious evangelical professors of theology and pastors who wish to be fully informed, would be willing (even eager) to read a book of 400 pages that examines every relevant biblical text on this subject. However, in response to your request, I happily refer you to a summary article that first appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, found at

  • Kirk Scott August 5, 2011 at 7:17 AM

    Thank you Dr. Fudge for taking the time to post on this thread! I found your book about 5 years ago and was overwhelmed with the humbly exhaustive biblical treatment of every potential passage that deals with the concept of eternal punishment. I to was extremely frustrated with Professor Naidu's uninformed quote "I’m not quite sure if there’s any biblical basis for this." To me this is just another example of Christendom's knee-jerk habit of destroying a thought before it is even studied or understood. Unfortunately, this problem has plagued the entire history of our faith (I think Martin Luther was affected by it just a little). It is quite obvious that Prof. Naidu has no idea what the basis for irreversible annihilation is, but to say that there is no biblical basis for this is just plain wrong. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but to say it doesn't exist and then mention the author of an exhaustive biblical work on the subject in the same paragraph...I was really at a loss for words. Mr. McLaughlin poses yet another problem with our church. Unfortunately, it does take time, study and effort to develop a transformed mind, so yes we must be willing to read a 400 page work even if we are convinced that we won't agree with the conclusions. He was correct in that most Christians and Christian educators aren't willing to do that....BUT these are the ones that we are looking to for well informed answers. Lord help us!!

  • Frank Schnorbus September 12, 2011 at 9:49 PM

    I will defer on the annihilationism controversy, but I do want to address the last question regarding children who die and people who are mentally incapable of coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. My answer to that question is simple, and though I have no doubt I'm not the first, I haven't seen it elsewhere. I'd appreciate any insights. First, I presume that God is omniscient; H. Wayne House describes it as "God knows all actual and possible things." and he references Ps 139:1-4, Ps 147:4-5, and Mt 11:21 (Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, pg 41). In Matthew Jesus says that if "x" had happened, people "would have" repented. So God not only knows what the future will be, but He also knows what the future would have been if man's sin nature and free will had not intervened. So God knows what that little boy would have been if he hadn't been aborted, or if mom hadn't used drugs. God's knowledge is limitless, and knows all of the possible combinations that could ever possibly happen. God also knows the heart of each person, no matter what their age or mental capacity, because God knows what that person would have been had sin not destroyed their life or mental abilities. So to me the answer is simple; I don't know and really can't know, but God does. Are heaven and hell real destinations? Yes, but only God knows the heart. Although I am certain that a few of the people I've met in my life have been truly evil, I must submit that God knows them better than I do, and focus instead on being obedient to God's plan for my own life.

  • Rev. David G. Humphrey September 15, 2011 at 11:13 PM

    From age 15 to 25 I was a committed Atheist with a sincere belief that science had made belief in any and all concepts of "god(s)" archaic and unnecessary. I was a successful, drinking cussing atheist, in the Truck Tire Business. One day one of my employees shared with me that "the way you use my best friends name really bothers me." He then explained that his best friends name was Jesus Christ. I decided to read the Bible so I could dismiss it as a book of myths and fairytales. Instead I came face to face with Jesus Christ. Within 6 months I was a student at BIOLA and went on to receive my MDiv from Talbot in 1972. I have served as the Pastor of four churches.

    I think Rob Bell has advanced the discussion as to the fate of all those who have lived before Christ and/or without any knowledge of Christ. Professor Naidu speaks of the grace of God which brought the Gospel to his Hindu Great Grandparents "several generations ago". He does not tell us what he believes about his ancestors who lived and died BEFORE the missionaries arrived. This is the issue Mr. Bell tries to address this book. I share his concerns about the mostly unintended portrayal of God as some kind of capricious "Cosmic Bully" who chooses a few lucky souls to reveal Himself to in some very limited times and ways and sends the rest off to the eternal flames and torment of Hell.

    I do see the danger of misleading people into thinking they can postpone making their personal decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord but I also see in this book a worthy attempt to deal with the questions about those who have NOT had the opportunity to accept or reject Christ during their life here on earth. The issue is not about a "second chance" for those who have heard but a "first chance for those who did not hear or only heard a distorted message during their earthly life.

    In Romans Chapters 1 and 2, we are told that everyone can see the evidence of God's existence in the wonders of His Creation and that GOD will judge every person based upon their response to what they know: Romans 2:15-16: "...their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them...when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ." In any Judgement the key elements are: "what did you know, when did you know it and what did you do about it?

    When I met Jesus Christ on the pages of the BIBLE on July 18, 1963, I was not "scared out of Hell", I was brought into God's Eternal LOVE! In just a few hours God showed me by His Holy Spirit that I was a sinner and that Jesus had Died for me and had Risen from the Grave with forgiveness and LOVE. There was a moment in time where I had to make a decision and I decided to leave my old life and business and to Follow Jesus. The question is "Why Me and not all those other people in all those other times and places? In this I agree with Mr. Bell: God is Love and Love Wins! Let us reach out to all with HIS LOVE!

  • Betty April 25, 2012 at 10:24 AM

    Good job

  • Glenn Peoples December 4, 2012 at 11:34 PM

    "From what I’ve seen and what I’ve read, the problem seems to be more existential, more emotional than scriptural and textual." This is so disappointing to see. Please hear this as intended with respect, but if a person who is a professor in theology can say that this is the basis for annihilationism, given what he has seen and read, then I submit that he should have said "as your question is about annihilationism, please allow me to refer it to someone who has read a bit more on the subject." I have lost count of the times I have seen the weel poisoned this way - and by evangelicals. Please reconsider speaking this way about a point of view that many of your brothers and sisters have invested great patience and effort defending as a throroughly biblical perspective. To be so dismissive is surely out of place.

    The doctrine of annihilationism is believed by a large and growing number of evangelicals because 1) They have seen that the typical defences given for the claim that the doctrine of eternal torment are surprisingly weak, and 2) the evidence that the Bible teaches annihilationism is much, much stronger than professors who make comments like those in this article would have had them believe, and their view was turned upside down when they discovered the evidence for themselves.

  • Glenn Peoples December 5, 2012 at 12:00 AM

    Whoops, weel = well.

    Incidentally, professor Naidu, if at some point you might be willing to discuss this on a show dedicated to respecful dialogue exploring people's views on final punishment (and yes, the show is run by annihilationists), feel free to drop me a line.

  • Albert Boykin March 28, 2015 at 8:43 AM

    I have found that the need for the doctrine of annihilaton is resolved in Gerry Beauchemin's book "Hope Beyond Hell " The PDF version is available as a no-cost down load:

  • Christian Gauthier July 17, 2015 at 2:16 PM

    Hell is a critical issue. Think of renowned people for whom Hell was a big factor alongside Evolution (Charles Templeton -Farewell to God, Brian Baker -From Faith to Reason, ex-atheist Anthony Flew -There IS a God). Although Creation convinced Flew, he could not believe in Jesus because of conscious torment. Although an oversimplification, please consider:
    1-How long do you believe the judging goes on in the "eternal judgment"? Heb 6:2
    A- Basically Judged & Re-Judged each & every day every moment Forever, for the rest of eternity
    B- Or finally judged just once, but last judgment is permanent, eternal, for the rest of eternity
    2-How long do you believe the saving goes on in the "eternal salvation"? Heb 5:9
    A- Basically Saved & Re-saved each & every moment Forever, for the rest of eternity
    B- Or fully/finally saved once, but it is permanent/irreversible, for the rest of eternity
    3-How long do you believe the redeeming goes on in the "eternal redemption"? Heb 9:12
    A – Basically Redeemed/re-redeemed each and every moment Forever, for the rest of eternity
    B- Or fully Redeemed once, but it is permanent, irreversible, for the rest of eternity
    4- How long do you believe the destructing of Hell goes on in "eternal destruction"?2Th1:9
    A – Basically Destroyed/Re-destroyed each & every moment Forever, for the rest of eternity?
    B- Or finally DESTROYED ONCE, but it is permanent/irreversible/for the rest of eternity
    5- How long do you believe the condemnation goes on in "eternal condemnation"? Mk3:29
    A – Basically Condemned/Re-Condemned each & every moment Forever, for the rest of eternity
    B- Or finally CONDEMNED ONCE, but it is permanent/irreversible/for the rest of eternity
    6- How long do you believe the punishing of Hell goes on in the "eternal punishment"? Matt 25:46
    A – Basically Punished/Re-punished each and every moment Forever, for the rest of eternity?
    B- Or finally PUNISHED ONCE, but it is permanent/irreversible/eternal/for the rest of eternity

    Were you consistent? Unless you can answer A to #1-3, you are inconsistent to answer A to #4-6 because these sentences with word “eternal” are exactly the same. So, if B to #1-3, then you should at least consider B for #4-6. If not, why not? The point of 6 questions is to show that our view comes from outside ideas/texts. Now, note that the DURATION can be exactly the same: all imparted ONCE (redeemed/destroyed once) but all permanent, irreversible, for the rest of eternity, hence ETERNAL. Can this be the plain consistent meaning of eternal for entire scriptures including Mt 25:46 and especially ``eternal life``. I`d say Yes! Although we have a measure of life now, many Scripture says life is fully GIVEN ONCE at the applicable resurrection/judgment... when mortality is swallowed up, when we will be MADE ALIVE (finally/fully) at His coming (1Cor 15:22-23), when we receive (once) in the AGE TO COME, ETERNAL LIFE (Luke 18:30).

Post a comment

Your email will not be published as part of your comment.

Biola University
13800 Biola Ave. La Mirada, CA 90639