The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Chuck Crisco on the lake of fire


This has to be the most uplifting exegesis of the lake of fire I’ve ever read.
What are your thoughts?


Nice to see someone else saying all the things I’ve been saying since I’ve been here… :hugs: :clap:


I must admit that it makes sense, maybe more sense than my understanding of the lafe of fire being the dissolved earth where the devil is tormented for ages of ages and sinners perish until they rise again.

This is a preterist understanding? I never took preterism serious, maybe I should rethink that.

Thank you for providing the link, there are more interesting articles.


Sven, yes, Crisco is a preterist.


The view in Hopeful Apocatastasis, raises this thought:

If this fire is God’s Presence, it would make sense it is eternal and could be referring to the state or quality of the fire, rather than a time duration.

Hell in this view is understood as the presence of God experienced by a person who, through the use of free will, rejects divine love. He is tortured by the love of God, tormented by being in the eternal presence of God without being in communion with God. God’s love is the fire that is never quenched, and the disposition and suffering of the soul in the presence of God who rejects him is the worm that does not die. Whether one experiences the presence of love as heaven or hell is entirely dependent on how he has resolved his own soul to be disposed towards God, whether communion or separation, love or hatred, acceptance or rejection.

Hell, then, is not primarily a place where God sends people in his wrath, or where God displays anger, but rather, it is the love of God, experienced by one who is not in communion with him. The figurative, spiritual fire of God’s love is transcendent joy to the person purified and transfigured by it through communion in the body of Christ, but bottomless despair and suffering to the person who rejects it, and chooses to remain in communion with death.

And it says this in What is the orthodox lake of fire in the book of revelation?


A quote from your article:

Romans 16:20, And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. Did you get that? The God of peace, who enforces peace, will soon crush the adversary under your Roman feet very soon. In AD 66 ½ to AD 70, that is exactly what happened in Jerusalem. The adversary was the Law system and the Romans crushed it. Chuck Crisco.

So “the adversary” is the Law of Moses, and not the devil? Well, I admit I believe the violent punishments of dogma, later nailed to the cross, were demonically inspired. But evil spirits are indeed real (non-human) people, too. Satan, a fallen archangel, the god of this world, is the one who inspired Rome to massacre the Jews in Jerusalem, not the God of love and abundant life, who warns, and offers rescue and refuge.

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. Colossians 2:8 (NLT).

I think you would be much better off just camping out here:

Others in church history… even many of the early church Fathers saw the lake of fire as a spiritual place where everyone in humanity was purged of their unbelief and sins so that they eventually believe in God. That is the universalist position. They teach that God is love. So when it says that God is a consuming fire, it must mean that is the fire of his love. Chuck Crisco.


Neither Crisco nor I believe in evil mythological creatures, whether arch angels, or demons, or nephilium, or bokoblins.


Qaz, I am honestly just not seeing how you can dismiss the reality of malignant spirit beings:

Luke 4:9
The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here."

Luke 8:33
When the demons came out of the man, they went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from thebeginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Acts 16:18
She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her. When her owners realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities.

Act 19:15
One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?”

Do you also not believe angels are real people either?


No I don’t believe angels are creatures either. My belief is that the Bible was written in a very poetic language full of idioms. I recommend you check out what George Lamsa had to say about demons and mystical beings. He grew up in a culture that preserved the language of Christ for 2000 years.


Here is one example of the reasoning presented in your linked resource:

In the story of the Gadarene demoniacs and the pigs (Mt. 8, Mk. 5, Lk. 8), according to the preferred understanding of Aramaic expert George M. Lamsa:

The men were not actually demonized; and in exchange for their healing of “lunacy” they would be willing to convert to Judaism. They were the ones who spoke to Jesus about the pigs, not the demons, asking Jesus permission to attack and destroy the pigs (not to “go into them”), in order to show gratitude to Jesus, and in recognition that pigs would now be unclean animals for them, too.

Lamsa interprets what the demoniacs were actually saying, and what was actually meant:

“If you heal us, permit us to attack the herd of swine.” …These crazy men were Syrians whose people kept large swine herds which were an abomination to the Jews. As proof to their conversion to the Jewish faith and in realization of what Jesus had done for them, they wanted to destroy the swine.

So even Matthew and Mark, eyewitnesses, in reality got the story wrong, because of their confusion about Aramaic idioms, the Greek language, and what actually took place?!


No. It’s not that Matthew and Mark got the story wrong, it’s that the story has traditionally been interpreted wrong. Here’s Lamsa’s translation of Matthew 8.


Jonathan Mitchell has a good article on demons.


Mitchell in referring to Lamsa work writes…

On the subject of “The Unclean Spirit” in the passage in Mark 1:23-27, he says, “The Aramaic word rokha tamtha means ‘the unclean spirit,’ [which means] a person who is unruly, insane or has an evil inclination”. The term ‘spirit’ in Aramaic also means ‘inclination,’ ‘rheumatism,’ ‘temper,’ ‘pride’ or ‘a person’. Wrong inclination is considered unclean.

Sounds a lot like…

Lk 9:55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.


Here is a critical analysis of George Lamsa and his Aramaic argument, with special consideration to the criticism of Professor Edwin Yamauchi:

George M. Lamsa, Rocco A. Errico and the Aramaic Argument” (undated), by Drs. John Ankerberg and John Weldon.

Four basic points are stressed:

  1. Scholars reject the basic premise of Lamsa’s Aramaic originals.
  2. The evidence declares that the Aramaic texts were derived from Greek texts, not vice versa, and therefore the Peshitta is the one with translation errors.
  3. Lamsa was not the objective scholar he is made out to be; furthermore, he ended his life in close agreement to many New Thought heresies (for example, he denied the deity of Christ and the atonement).
  4. Aramaic is used by more than a dozen cults to reject biblical doctrines, rather than to elucidate the meaning of the text.


Hermano, none of your points refutes the premise that what Lamsa said about demons is true. It was with an Aramaic mindset that the apostles passed on what they witnessed, whether they initially did it orally or in writing.

It’s almost always people who think creatures called demons are everywhere that happen to “see” demons. If demons really existed there probably wouldn’t be this strong correlation. Almost everyone would report seeing demons.


There are three explanations for “unusual” phenomena:

  • It’s from God

  • Demonic activity

  • Natural or scientific explanations

For example. The RC church has a status of Mary, that is crying. Or the EO has an icon of Mary, that is crying. And they send the moisture off for analysis. And it turns out to be, real human tears. Well, which of the three categories explains it? Someone could just have been touching it. And maybe a pipe was leaking, at the same time. Etc.

And we had a recent poster here, who tried to argue…that all his or her videos, of “unusual” phenomena - are from God. The RC and EO churches, are much wiser…in admitting stuff needs, to be investigated first. To see which category, it fits into.