What do you think?
Rate this book
Repent or Perish: With a Special Reference to the Conservative Attack on Hell
Book by Gerstner, John H., Grestner, John H.
- GenresTheology
218 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
1 person is currently reading
20 people want to read
About the author
John H. Gerstner
68 books20 followersJohn Henry Gerstner was a Professor of Church History at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and Knox Theological Seminary and an authority on the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards.
He earned both a Master of Divinity of degree and a Master of Theology degree from Westminster Theological Seminary. He earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University in 1945. He was originally ordained in the United Presbyterian Church of North America, then (due to church unions) with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Presbyterian Church (USA). In 1990, he left the PCUSA for the Presbyterian Church in America.
Gerstner counted among his students, noted author and preacher, R. C. Sproul, founder of Ligonier Ministries, Dr. Arthur Lindsley, Senior Fellow at the C.S. Lewis Institute, and Dr. Walter (Wynn) Kenyon, Professor of Biblical Studies and Philosophy; Chair of the Philosophy Department and Division of Ministry and Human Services at Belhaven University.
In addition to the books Gerstner had written, he also recorded several lengthy audio courses giving a survey of theology, church history, and Christian apologetics, which are distributed through Ligonier Ministries. Gerstner was non-dispensationalist.
In 1976, a Festschrift was published in Gerstner's honor. Soli Deo Gloria: Essays in Reformed Theology included contributions by Cornelius Van Til, J. I. Packer, Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, John Murray, R. C. Sproul, John Warwick Montgomery, and Roger Nicole.
He earned both a Master of Divinity of degree and a Master of Theology degree from Westminster Theological Seminary. He earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University in 1945. He was originally ordained in the United Presbyterian Church of North America, then (due to church unions) with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Presbyterian Church (USA). In 1990, he left the PCUSA for the Presbyterian Church in America.
Gerstner counted among his students, noted author and preacher, R. C. Sproul, founder of Ligonier Ministries, Dr. Arthur Lindsley, Senior Fellow at the C.S. Lewis Institute, and Dr. Walter (Wynn) Kenyon, Professor of Biblical Studies and Philosophy; Chair of the Philosophy Department and Division of Ministry and Human Services at Belhaven University.
In addition to the books Gerstner had written, he also recorded several lengthy audio courses giving a survey of theology, church history, and Christian apologetics, which are distributed through Ligonier Ministries. Gerstner was non-dispensationalist.
In 1976, a Festschrift was published in Gerstner's honor. Soli Deo Gloria: Essays in Reformed Theology included contributions by Cornelius Van Til, J. I. Packer, Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, John Murray, R. C. Sproul, John Warwick Montgomery, and Roger Nicole.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 11, 2015
I have read a lot of bad books that attempt to prove that Hell is a place of eternal conscious punishment, but given this books vitriolic and arrogant tone, the at times just outlandish arguments, and the fact that most of the exegesis is unabashedly based on a theological assumption that Gerstner makes early on, as of June 22, 2012, this is the worst book on the topic of Hell that I have ever read.
The main thrust is a critique of Christian writings (not that he likely considers many of them to be Christians) that deny the traditional teaching of Hell as a place of eternal torment. The bulk of the book is devoted t the arguments made by Edward Fudge in The Fire that Consumes (or, better said, caricatured arguments that vaguely resemble those in The Fire that Consumes).
For the most part, Gerstner’s arguments are he same cluster of superficially exegeted passages that make up every other book that attempts to show that Hell is a place of eternal torment. Matthew 25:41-46, Mark 9:48, Revelation 14:10-11, etc. When it makes a better case, he’ll use non-literal NIV translations of verses, such as 2 Thessalonians 1:9, to argue for the traditional view based on the NIV’s unique, assumption driven rendering.
One recurring theme is that assumption that “punishment” means torment. Despite the fact that he is critiquing (i.e. urinating on) numerous works which give very coherent explanations as to how annihilation is a form of punishment, even “eternal punishment,” he doesn’t seem to grasp them, or even acknowledge that they exist. Punishment means conscious torment, and that is that!
In fact, it pretty much all comes back to the point that he assumes annihilation is not a form of punishment (hey, it’s not like we call killing a person “capital punishment or anything”)…I mean, he literally says this more than a few times. As the book goes on, it becomes less and less an attempt at exegesis and more a thinly veiled rant about how if annihilationism is true, then the God never really gets revenge against the wicked and is not really just. By about half-way through it becomes clear, as almost every passage that Fudge looks a and Gerstner critiques becomes about how annihilation just isn’t severe enough for sin, and not so much about the actual passages themselves. I say this in all seriousness; Matthew 25:46 is one of the first passages he looks at, and since he determines that annihilation isn’t a form of punishment, this assumption and that passage provide the basis for interpreting almost every other passage in the whole book. Many of Gerstner’s broader critiques of Fudge being incoherent or inconsistent only occur because Gerstner just cannot wrap his head around the fact that in the mind of Fudge and annihilationists, annihilation is a punishment. It is God’s wrath. What he sees as incoherent is perfectly coherent. It’s one thing not to agree with it, but he doesn’t seem to even understand it. To Gerstner, be destroyed is “blessed oblivion,” which I think says a lot about the mindset Gerstner took going into this endeavor.
He devotes a good portion to refuting the arguments of Edward Fudge, but fails to do so in so many ways. Again, much of it is because he knows already that any passage about the wicked teaches that they will be punished, and since annihilationists don’t believe in punishment, they must be wrong. No in-depth exegesis is really needed. At times, he does still try, and proceeds to miss the point. For example, Fudge argues that Hebrews 9:12 speaks of “eternal redemption” being a one time act (redeeming) having eternal consequences (being that we are saved). The point being that in this case (and many like it), an eternal noun of action (redemption, judgment, inheritance, etc.) means not that the act continues for ever, but hat the result of the act lasts forever. This is relevant to Matthew 25:46, “eternal punishment,” where according to annihilationists, God punishes an unsaved person by destroying them, and the result, them being destroyed, is what is eternal. Gerstner argues that that cannot be in Hebrews 9:12, for in that case, the act of redeeming would not be eternal, but the results would be. But since it says “eternal redemption” it must mean the act of redeeming, even though Jesus isn’t continually redeeming us. Otherwise, it would mean that “eternal redemption” would mean the results of the act of redeeming were what were eternal. And why can’t it be the case? Because it can’t be the case…Ultimately it doesn’t matter, because, again, annihilation isn’t punishment, and that is that!
When he finally does get down to Fudge’s interpretation of Matthew 25:46, that “punishment” is a noun that results from the act of “punishing,” Gerstner takes note of that, and then says “a non-existent, annihilated person cannot suffer punishment.” But that’s not what Fudge is saying, as Gerstner just noted. Punishment is the result; the person is alive when they suffer punishment (i.e. are punished). Ultimately, I think he’s trying to say that punishment is the infliction of punishment, not the result as Fudge argues, but he doesn’t actually argue that. After all, as he states at least once every couple of pages by the second half, annihilation just is not punishment, so he just assumes that punishment must be punishing, and therefore assumes Fudge’s point to be incoherent.
To point to even a good sampling of his misinterpretations would be make this already too long review exceptionally laborious to read, but know that they are ubiquitous. For example, he says that “Fudge thinks an adequate punishment for a life of sin against an infinite God is some finite time period…” Now, of course Gerstner says that, because annihilation is “blessed oblivion,” not in anyway a form of punishment. Only the temporary torment between the resurrection and annihilation count as punishment in Gerstner’s mind. But that’s absolutely not what Fudge makes abundantly clear as his belief – annihilation is the ultimate punishment for sin; the temporary suffering beforehand is simply to distinguish Hitler and a lesser sinner (and as I would elaborate, they are relatively minor differences, as all men are ultimately full of evil apart from Christ). The book is full of misunderstandings, false dilemmas, and false dichotomies. It overlooks many simple but key arguments, like how a fire that dies out is not quenched, or Fudge’s connection between Revelation 14:9-11 and Isaiah 34:9-10, a very key part of Fudge’s explanation of the rising smoke imagery that Gerstner completely ignores. Gerstner is also extremely literal in his interpretations except when only a figurative understanding would be consistent with eternal torment. It is really just frustrating to wade through.
As I said in the beginning, by far the worst part of the book is the tone and attitude. Gerstner is rude, hostile, and vitriolic. He is so wrapped up in his own position that to deny is means you are not a “conservative believer, if a believer at all.” Annihilationists believe in an “ever unstable, ever miserable deity.” How can anyone even expect to reason with someone who takes that attitude?
He also makes outrageous and scriptureless claims, such as how annihilation makes Christ’s death unnecessary because, shut up, that’s why! (He gives a little bit more than that, but not much). He grossly impugns Fudge, saying that He is contradicting the Lord to His face by saying that “eternal punishment” doesn’t mean “eternal infliction of punishment,” and that “I can see no hope for that man short of repentance while there is time.” Unbelievable.
At times you can almost hear him laughing at what he thinks the other side is arguing (usually it’s a bad caricature of it), and can’t help but feel the irony, as I often times felt that, if you replace the names of annihilationist he critiques with his, “if one did not feel otherwise from reading this book and the solemnity of this theme, one could not believe [Gerstner] is serious.” Along those lines, given the quotes definitely taken out of context and grossly misunderstood, you wouldn’t know he was critiquing Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes if he didn’t say so. Having not read some of the other works he examines, I can’t help but wonder what they really said in their books.
He also misattributes passages on several occasions. For example, after caricaturing Fudge’s arguments about eternal punishment and eternal consequences, he writes, “Can anyone seriously imagine that this is what Heb. 6:2 means by ‘eternal punishment’?” No, I certainly cannot, because Hebrews 6:2 never brings up “eternal punishment.”
The penultimate chapter, “How to and How Not to Repent,” had some serious issues of its own. It was something like a call to accept Jesus, except it was far gloomier and far less hopeful. I don’t take issue with him saying that the person who needs to repent hates God and all that – that’s more or less true. I don’t object to him saying that some people are only sorry about the consequences for sin, not sin itself; again, that’s true. I don’t mind him saying that for one to repent, God needs to give them a new heart. That’s a common reformed position. But let’s assume that’s true: when the jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” they replied “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:30b; 31b). Jesus openly invites all to come to Him, promising them rest in Him (Matthew 11:28-30). Peter told the Jews “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38b). Jesus declared “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37). In other words, those who come to the Lord can be sure that they are saved. The fact that they want to go to Jesus means that God has already given them a new heart and enabled them to believe.
...But then Gerstner admonishes the hypothetical repenter that God may or may not choose to give them a new heart and have mercy on them, and that if He does, it may not be any time soon. But the Bible says freely invites any that will turn to God, meaning that anyone who would, if God’s prior intervention is necessary, has already been turned to Christ by God! Gerstner turns a systematic principle of reformed theology into a way to dampen the joyful assurance given by the Bible itself. If I were to apply Gerstner’s style of reasoning and tendency to pain any position I disagree with in the worst possible light, I would say much worse about it…Fortunately, I can’t envision an unbeliever reading this book in the first place, so I don’t think to many would be discouraged by it.
Unfortunately, Gerstner’s attempt at rousing up our evangelical and missionary zeal falls flat with this volume.
The main thrust is a critique of Christian writings (not that he likely considers many of them to be Christians) that deny the traditional teaching of Hell as a place of eternal torment. The bulk of the book is devoted t the arguments made by Edward Fudge in The Fire that Consumes (or, better said, caricatured arguments that vaguely resemble those in The Fire that Consumes).
For the most part, Gerstner’s arguments are he same cluster of superficially exegeted passages that make up every other book that attempts to show that Hell is a place of eternal torment. Matthew 25:41-46, Mark 9:48, Revelation 14:10-11, etc. When it makes a better case, he’ll use non-literal NIV translations of verses, such as 2 Thessalonians 1:9, to argue for the traditional view based on the NIV’s unique, assumption driven rendering.
One recurring theme is that assumption that “punishment” means torment. Despite the fact that he is critiquing (i.e. urinating on) numerous works which give very coherent explanations as to how annihilation is a form of punishment, even “eternal punishment,” he doesn’t seem to grasp them, or even acknowledge that they exist. Punishment means conscious torment, and that is that!
In fact, it pretty much all comes back to the point that he assumes annihilation is not a form of punishment (hey, it’s not like we call killing a person “capital punishment or anything”)…I mean, he literally says this more than a few times. As the book goes on, it becomes less and less an attempt at exegesis and more a thinly veiled rant about how if annihilationism is true, then the God never really gets revenge against the wicked and is not really just. By about half-way through it becomes clear, as almost every passage that Fudge looks a and Gerstner critiques becomes about how annihilation just isn’t severe enough for sin, and not so much about the actual passages themselves. I say this in all seriousness; Matthew 25:46 is one of the first passages he looks at, and since he determines that annihilation isn’t a form of punishment, this assumption and that passage provide the basis for interpreting almost every other passage in the whole book. Many of Gerstner’s broader critiques of Fudge being incoherent or inconsistent only occur because Gerstner just cannot wrap his head around the fact that in the mind of Fudge and annihilationists, annihilation is a punishment. It is God’s wrath. What he sees as incoherent is perfectly coherent. It’s one thing not to agree with it, but he doesn’t seem to even understand it. To Gerstner, be destroyed is “blessed oblivion,” which I think says a lot about the mindset Gerstner took going into this endeavor.
He devotes a good portion to refuting the arguments of Edward Fudge, but fails to do so in so many ways. Again, much of it is because he knows already that any passage about the wicked teaches that they will be punished, and since annihilationists don’t believe in punishment, they must be wrong. No in-depth exegesis is really needed. At times, he does still try, and proceeds to miss the point. For example, Fudge argues that Hebrews 9:12 speaks of “eternal redemption” being a one time act (redeeming) having eternal consequences (being that we are saved). The point being that in this case (and many like it), an eternal noun of action (redemption, judgment, inheritance, etc.) means not that the act continues for ever, but hat the result of the act lasts forever. This is relevant to Matthew 25:46, “eternal punishment,” where according to annihilationists, God punishes an unsaved person by destroying them, and the result, them being destroyed, is what is eternal. Gerstner argues that that cannot be in Hebrews 9:12, for in that case, the act of redeeming would not be eternal, but the results would be. But since it says “eternal redemption” it must mean the act of redeeming, even though Jesus isn’t continually redeeming us. Otherwise, it would mean that “eternal redemption” would mean the results of the act of redeeming were what were eternal. And why can’t it be the case? Because it can’t be the case…Ultimately it doesn’t matter, because, again, annihilation isn’t punishment, and that is that!
When he finally does get down to Fudge’s interpretation of Matthew 25:46, that “punishment” is a noun that results from the act of “punishing,” Gerstner takes note of that, and then says “a non-existent, annihilated person cannot suffer punishment.” But that’s not what Fudge is saying, as Gerstner just noted. Punishment is the result; the person is alive when they suffer punishment (i.e. are punished). Ultimately, I think he’s trying to say that punishment is the infliction of punishment, not the result as Fudge argues, but he doesn’t actually argue that. After all, as he states at least once every couple of pages by the second half, annihilation just is not punishment, so he just assumes that punishment must be punishing, and therefore assumes Fudge’s point to be incoherent.
To point to even a good sampling of his misinterpretations would be make this already too long review exceptionally laborious to read, but know that they are ubiquitous. For example, he says that “Fudge thinks an adequate punishment for a life of sin against an infinite God is some finite time period…” Now, of course Gerstner says that, because annihilation is “blessed oblivion,” not in anyway a form of punishment. Only the temporary torment between the resurrection and annihilation count as punishment in Gerstner’s mind. But that’s absolutely not what Fudge makes abundantly clear as his belief – annihilation is the ultimate punishment for sin; the temporary suffering beforehand is simply to distinguish Hitler and a lesser sinner (and as I would elaborate, they are relatively minor differences, as all men are ultimately full of evil apart from Christ). The book is full of misunderstandings, false dilemmas, and false dichotomies. It overlooks many simple but key arguments, like how a fire that dies out is not quenched, or Fudge’s connection between Revelation 14:9-11 and Isaiah 34:9-10, a very key part of Fudge’s explanation of the rising smoke imagery that Gerstner completely ignores. Gerstner is also extremely literal in his interpretations except when only a figurative understanding would be consistent with eternal torment. It is really just frustrating to wade through.
As I said in the beginning, by far the worst part of the book is the tone and attitude. Gerstner is rude, hostile, and vitriolic. He is so wrapped up in his own position that to deny is means you are not a “conservative believer, if a believer at all.” Annihilationists believe in an “ever unstable, ever miserable deity.” How can anyone even expect to reason with someone who takes that attitude?
He also makes outrageous and scriptureless claims, such as how annihilation makes Christ’s death unnecessary because, shut up, that’s why! (He gives a little bit more than that, but not much). He grossly impugns Fudge, saying that He is contradicting the Lord to His face by saying that “eternal punishment” doesn’t mean “eternal infliction of punishment,” and that “I can see no hope for that man short of repentance while there is time.” Unbelievable.
At times you can almost hear him laughing at what he thinks the other side is arguing (usually it’s a bad caricature of it), and can’t help but feel the irony, as I often times felt that, if you replace the names of annihilationist he critiques with his, “if one did not feel otherwise from reading this book and the solemnity of this theme, one could not believe [Gerstner] is serious.” Along those lines, given the quotes definitely taken out of context and grossly misunderstood, you wouldn’t know he was critiquing Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes if he didn’t say so. Having not read some of the other works he examines, I can’t help but wonder what they really said in their books.
He also misattributes passages on several occasions. For example, after caricaturing Fudge’s arguments about eternal punishment and eternal consequences, he writes, “Can anyone seriously imagine that this is what Heb. 6:2 means by ‘eternal punishment’?” No, I certainly cannot, because Hebrews 6:2 never brings up “eternal punishment.”
The penultimate chapter, “How to and How Not to Repent,” had some serious issues of its own. It was something like a call to accept Jesus, except it was far gloomier and far less hopeful. I don’t take issue with him saying that the person who needs to repent hates God and all that – that’s more or less true. I don’t object to him saying that some people are only sorry about the consequences for sin, not sin itself; again, that’s true. I don’t mind him saying that for one to repent, God needs to give them a new heart. That’s a common reformed position. But let’s assume that’s true: when the jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” they replied “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:30b; 31b). Jesus openly invites all to come to Him, promising them rest in Him (Matthew 11:28-30). Peter told the Jews “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38b). Jesus declared “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37). In other words, those who come to the Lord can be sure that they are saved. The fact that they want to go to Jesus means that God has already given them a new heart and enabled them to believe.
...But then Gerstner admonishes the hypothetical repenter that God may or may not choose to give them a new heart and have mercy on them, and that if He does, it may not be any time soon. But the Bible says freely invites any that will turn to God, meaning that anyone who would, if God’s prior intervention is necessary, has already been turned to Christ by God! Gerstner turns a systematic principle of reformed theology into a way to dampen the joyful assurance given by the Bible itself. If I were to apply Gerstner’s style of reasoning and tendency to pain any position I disagree with in the worst possible light, I would say much worse about it…Fortunately, I can’t envision an unbeliever reading this book in the first place, so I don’t think to many would be discouraged by it.
Unfortunately, Gerstner’s attempt at rousing up our evangelical and missionary zeal falls flat with this volume.
August 30, 2022
While there are a few small gems and nuggets of gold here and there, for the most part this book isn't a good defense of the Traditionalist view of hell. Nor is it a good critique and refutation of the Conditionalist/Annihilationist view of hell. I say that as someone who leans over 80% toward the Traditionalist view. I may revise and expand this review, but what I've already said expresses my sentiments in a nutshell.
May 11, 2024
John Gerstner is the Reformed Hero of a generation. Rather, he is the unsung hero. Known mostly, for his Westminster confession of faith, lectures, his writings on Jonathan Edwards, and being the professor and mentor of one RC Sproul. Yes in this very short little volume the normally reserved Presbyterian minister, gives the call we usually hear from a street preacher. And repent or perish. He goes over the validity of the doctrine of hell. However, he does not attack universalism, because that is a low hanging fruit and completely at odds with the Bible, his target, which is also at odds with the Bible, is the idea of annihilationalism. While he spends a good portion of the book, tackling the arguments that people have made through them, he does not have to do much work because they negated themselves. Towards the end, he gives the gospel message we all need to hear. Not repent, or you may perish, but rather repent, or you will perish, everlasting.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews