It goes the same for me. I do follow every thread I supply input to. So I know if someone is responding to my answer or input. Thanks in advance. 
I guess I should add a bit to Paidion’s input. 
And if you are kept awake, waiting for the end - no problem 
Read through some Quora Q and A, like:
Why is quantum field theory necessary?
This IMO is too simplistic a besmirching and mischaracterisation of prêterism… ALL fields of eschatological study interpret the prophetic BOTH literally AND figuratively… the ONLY difference is the particular mix of this and the justification as to why, where and how this happens.
Even you are not averse to using “figurative” language when it suits an argument, as is seen HERE…
So again it comes down to the balance as to HOW these are used… and as such my estimation is the a prêteristic rationale does less violence to the text and common sense as it takes into account historical narrative, i.e., Yahweh came in Judgement via external military force, as per the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser III (1Chron 5:25-26), the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar (1Chron 6:15; Ezra 5:12) and the Roman Titus (Lk 21:20-24), etc.
Okay sorry, I was doing it for consistency.
Oh okay, still don’t know what do with verses 29-30:
-29: And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
-30: But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
MATTHEW 19:29-30:
-29: And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
-30: But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Sounds a little too convenient for me, kind of like how if something tastes really good, it’s usually hot healthy.
As for Matthew 5:43-48, one Christian put it this way about God loving his enemies in this YouTube video:
youtube.com/watch?v=1VNJwDjBjAU
This Christian is a Calvinist, and Calvinism is a wicked doctrine, and when hyper-Calvinism comes into the question, it removes all purpose to life, HOWEVER, there is an objection here and in order to destroy every pillar holding up Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) / Annihilationism must be destroyed in order to move to a theology that completely changes the way you view God.
HOWEVER, Robert Morey’s arguments can be refuted with Luke 6:35:
LUKE 6:35:
-35: But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
HOWEVER, I quote from a website called Soulwinning.info (link - soulwinning.info/) “Albeit, God’s longsuffering and patience won’t endure indefinitely.”, well the problem with that quote is that the Bible says the exact opposite for that:
PSALM 136:
-1: O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
-2: O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
-3: O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
-4: To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.
-5: To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.
-6: To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.
-7: To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:
-8: The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever:
-9: The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.
HOWEVER, if “everlasting punishment” doesn’t mean everlasting punishment in Matthew 25:46, how can we be sure that “his mercy endureth for eve” means His mercy endures forever in Psalm 136?
These verses about events having soon do not prove Preterism, we are living in the last times and things have to happen soon because it’s the last age prior to judgement, the Church Age, the age between The Lord Jesus Christ walking the earth and the end of the Current Heaven and Current Earth.
How to you interpret “every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him” then?
This sums up why I see Preterism as an excuse to ignore certain scriptures, but Preterism also ignores end times warning, for example, this world is clearly heading towards a cashless society (or physical currencyless society) which will pave the way for the Mark of the Beast that one can’t buy or sell without:
REVELATION 13:16-17:
-16: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
-17: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Yet to a Preterist, this verse has NO application today.
Your welcome, I was just tagging everyone for consistency though sorry. For those who don’t want to be tagged, just let me know and I will just type @[YOUR NAME] instead of clicking on the ‘Tag’ button.
God Bless
Christ Be With You All
One could actually argue that “many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first” is talking about Universal Salvation.
Well:
JAMES 2:14-24:
-14: What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
-15: If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
-16: And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
-17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
-18: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
-19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
-20: But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
-21: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
-22: Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
-23: And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
-24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
It gives me little comfort that the two examples here are feeding the homeless (something I would do if I had the faith that God would provide for me, please pray I can get that faith) and offering up your own son on the altar (something I could never see myself doing if I had a son).
I know this is not taking about salvation BY works, but works BECAUSE of salvation, but still, right now I lack the faith to feed every homeless person I see because I am worried about getting detained by US customs even with the money I have now, and I would be even more worried with less money.
I would have to watch it again when I’m not at school, but what I remember can be summed up with the following?
-Loving your enemies is compared being kind to prisoners of war (by feeding them, etc), please don’t quote me here, I need to watch the video again when I’m home.
-The Lord Jesus Christ didn’t love his enemies when he whipped them and called them vipers, full of dead mans bones, etc
I will be honest, I am ready to say that if God doesn’t have a plan to save all, there is no purpose to life.
This isn’t really much of an answer, is there any way to actually know?
Poetically or not, it still has to been something the same as or similar to what it says literally.
STT, you seem to be overly preoccupied with giving to the homeless. I don’t think that God expects one to simply give away all of his/her possessions. This would be totally unreasonable. First and foremost, we must be responsible and be able to provide for ourselves. If not, we end up poor and having to throw ourselves on the mercy of others. The example of the rich young ruler was directed at someone whom I would say, had a love for money. The moral of the story is somewhat similar to " A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, in which the Scrooge had no life because he was a miser, and his love for money consumed him.
On another note, I don’t think God instructed Abraham to kill his son upon an altar. This would be murder. I believe the story may have some spiritual significance to it. However, it should not be taken literally.
AND - speaking of interpretation and such - Bob Wilson’s articles are a huge help - here’s one 'Reading the Bible as Jesus Did". You’ll find Bob at the top of the top of the intro page with the other heavies. I say that with respect.
[tag]LLC[/tag]
Well one could argue that I have a love for money because I am holding on to it rather than giving it away and trusting God to provide, something I wish I could do but lack the faith to do so - please pray that I can have that faith.
LUKE 12:31-34:
-31: But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
-32: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
-33: Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
-34: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
I don’t have the faith required for this.
One could argue that the last being first and the first being last is related to all being made alive each in their own order in 1 Corinthians 15:
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22-28:
-22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
-23: But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
-24: Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
-25: For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
-26: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
-27: For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
-28: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
HOWEVER, these verses talks about an enemy being destroyed, granted it’s an entity, but one could see this as the other enemies being put under The Lord Jesus Christ’s feet = the enemies being destroyed (annihilated).
I hope you are not writing off the book of James because of this, James doesn’t contradict Paul, James is not talking about working FOR salvation, but working AS A RESULT OF salvation.
Martin Luther not only tried to remove the Book of James, but also the Book of Hebrews, the Book of Jude and the Book of Revelation, what does the Bible have to say about this:
REVELATION 22:19:
-19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17:
-16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
-17: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Also, Martin Luther was a Calvinist, believed in limited atonement, and denied free will:
MARTIN LUTHER:
-“This error of free will is a special doctrine of the Antichrist”
I do, but my fiancee lives in the United States and I am going over to visit for 6 weeks and 5 days for Christmas, and I am only taking $600 (which will be fine because accommodation is sorted and the only food I need to pay for is when we go on dates), so I fear that if I give away money, I will be detained by US Customs because they will be suspicious of why I am carrying little money. I should be able to be doing this:
LUKE 12:31-34:
-31: But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
-32: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
-33: Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
-34: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
…and trust God to take care of it, but I lack the faith - please pray that I get it (sorry I keep repeating that but you never know what new readers there might be).
Well Robert Morey (the Christian in the YouTube video) said The Lord Jesus Christ wasn’t be loving to the people he was whipping, he didn’t say that Jesus clearing the temple wasn’t a loving act.
-God is Holy, not is not just love
-True
-This is compatible with Annihilationism - not so much Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) because chances are people will be cursing God for eternity.
-True
-True
Well we will leave it at that then, HOWEVER, I will put in that God came down on a cherub in David’s mind, and the earth was laid bare because in a poetic sense because God scattered David’s enemies (Psalm 18:14-15).
Yet Preterism can’t give an explanation for “every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him”.
[tag]DaveB[/tag]
Thank you for the link, I can’t look at it right now, but I will when I get a chance.
God Bless
Christ Be With You All
All of Bob’s papers are worth reading. Time well spent. 
You can actually download a copy here! If you like it, buy a copy and give it to someone 
preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1987_chilton_days-of-vengeance.pdf
Wow - it’s a huge book also, I would never have expected a freebie. 
Thanks much!!!
“Everlasting punishment” doesn’t occur in Matthew 25:46. That is a mistranslation. “κολασις αιωνιος” should be translated as “lasting correction.”
Well, actually it’s “κολασιν αιωνιον” because the words are in the accusative mode, since they are objects of the preposition “εις.”
While I disagree with Chilton’s overall interpretation, I found his book to be the most interesting book on the Apocalypse that I’ve ever read. His footnotes are particularly fascinating.
I adopt Eugenio Corsini’s interpretation of the Apocalypse: Virtually all of the book is the history of the Old Testament more deeply revealed in light of Christ’s Incarnation. (“The revelation of Jesus Christ” = revealing Christ’s presence from before the beginning of the world.) The great white throne of chapter 20 represents Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father at His Ascension in A. D. 30. Chapters 21 and 22 describe Christ’s Church in this world. Nothing in the book is a prophecy of anything later than the Church’s first Pentecost in Acts 2.
I believe In sum:
Getting point 6 firmly in my mind even more firmly cemented universalism in my heart. So many of those who say they believe in Hell place a huge emphasis on human sinfulness and say it has to be everlasting. Not only is wickedness not everlasting, it can hardly be said to exist (though it does, barely). It exists only inside this weird little parenthesis of our false start. The creation hasn’t even really begun yet. Satan and others at the starting line jumped the gun. We’re all being called back to the starting line so our run can really begin. The end is not nigh. There is no end (except of sin and its progeny). Let us say rather that the beginning is coming, when we know not. When Christ returns, then creation properly begins. 
Waiting to see the finished product brother 
And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. (Genesis 19:11)
‘Brothers and sisters, do you know what “smote” means? It means to go up side the head! Because sometimes it’s the only way.’ 
Geoffery said:
Well, it was the beginning of a new covenant but the end of the old. The scriptures were (are) about a covenant relationship between God and Israel.
You might consider:
Max King’s ‘The Spirit of Prophesy’ and ‘The Cross and the Parousia’ (which I am currently reading) 
Also you may consider Gary DeMar’s 'Last Days Madness and his ‘End Times Fiction.’
Good Luck
Peace
Chad
Well it was in terms of its historical narrative and did indeed find prophetic fulfillment in THEIR day… the “every eye” being the language of hyperbolic inclusion relative those to whom these words were given. For example:
The “coming on the clouds of heaven” is the language of eschatological judgement straight out of the OT where Yahweh literally came in power by way of invading military force; as I noted up the page via… the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser III (1Chron 5:25-26), the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar (1Chron 6:15; Ezra 5:12) and thus, the Roman Titus (Lk 21:20-24). Again the “every eye” would be inclusive of those mentioned here:
CLEARLY some would live to see the Parousia (AD70)… whether those surviving fully grasped what they witnessed might be a different matter, but see it they did, as prophesied. This was their Day of Clouds…
THIS above IS what Christ’s parousia in the power and glory of the Father was all about. Jesus’ “2nd Coming” as it is popularly called was NEVER about Jesus doing a final lap around the globe on a few clouds with a final touch in Jerusalem where shazaam poof the time-space universe dissolves in a flash and we all start again … that is the fanciful ‘readers digest’ type of interpretation that totally fails to grasp the idioms of biblical prophecy.
Again… these types of uncritical blanket statements aren’t that useful… see above.
This is pretty cool to anyone who will take the time to investigate
As I mentioned before, the only other time ‘κόλασις [kolasis] (Strong’s Reference Number G2851)’, is only ever used one other time in the Bible, and that is in 1 John 4:18:
1 JOHN 4:18:
-18: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment [kolasis]. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
I asked how does the fear that perfect love casts out relate to pruning for correction?
And you gave me an answer that involved the love casting out the ‘κόλασις [kolasis]’ which would be correction, but for that to be true, it would be love doing the pruning, not the torment.
[tag]Geoffrey[/tag]
This alone disproves Ultra-Universalism.
Revelation 20:10 does not just say Satan is in the Lake of Fire for “aiOnas tOn aiOnOn”, I don’t know what this means (both ‘aiOnas’ and ‘aiOnOn’ have the Strong’s Reference Number (G165) for ‘αἰών [aiōn]’) but it does prove that Satan is in the Lake of Fire for at least 2 ages, Ultra-Universalism is not compatible with this at all.
You do realize exactly who was smote here right? it was the Sodomites on the night of Sodom’s destruction.
Actually I’m saying the saying that the last being first and the first being last could teach universal salvation.
The ones people think will go to Hell will actually be saved, take the words of The Lord Jesus Christ here:
MATTHEW 21:31:
-31: Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
…and those who people think will go to Heaven will actually be lost, but not hopelessly, as they will be “the last” to be saved.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22-28:
-22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
—>SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, EVERYONE WILL BE RESURRECTED, WHETHER IN THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION.
-23: But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
-24: Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
-25: For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
—>CHRIST PUTS ALL ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET, READ NEXT VERSE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO ENEMIES
-26: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
—>THIS VERSE REVEALS THAT THE ENEMIES ARE DESTROYED
-27: For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
-28: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
I would say that Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) is not the worst enemy to Universalism, Annihilationism is.
Those whoes works are wood, hay, and stubble are saved through fire.
1 CORINTHIANS 3:10-15:
-10: According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
-11: For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
-12: Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
-13: Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
-14: If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
-15: If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
HOWEVER, since the “gold, silver, precious stones” and “wood, hay, stubble” are being build oh the foundation of The Lord Jesus Christ, how could one see these verses to talk about the salvation of non-Christians?
Again, Paul gave lots of instructions on how to live properly to members of some of the earliest churches. Giving away all one’s possessions and voluntary poverty was not among his instructions.
Even if we don’t have to sell all of our possessions, I still lack the faith to give any money away right now, and this is contrary to what The Lord Jesus Christ said:
LUKE 12:31-34:
-31: But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
-32: Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
-33: Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
-34: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Point taken.
Point taken.
I also have a question for [tag]JasonPratt[/tag], I know you appeal to Mark 9:49-50:
MARK 9:49-50:
-49: For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
-50: Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
Everyone being salted by fire hints towards a refiners fire, HOWEVER, could it be seen like this:
Salt is good for the believer, but for the unbeliever, salt has lost it’s saltness?
Lastly I will put a nail in the coffin for Preterism - as I quoted before to Geoffery:
REVELATION 20:10
-10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Has this happened yet?
God Bless
Christ Be With You All
I never thought that I would come, to the rescue of Preterism. But see:
The Serpent is in the Lake of Fire
[list]Consistency in Preterism: Annihilation and Revelation 20:10[/list:u]
I’m not a preterist (either full or partial), mind you. But I am very good at academic and keyword research. As well as being a Holy Fool and P-Zombie.
I really detest it, when folks try to put nails in coffins. Especially in the month of Halloween. I prefer to use superglue myself.
And what’s even worse, I have to put aside all the horror, zombie and monster movies (during the month of Halloween)…the Cubs playing in the World’s Series…And the comedy team of Hillary and Donald…to help folks out here.
I’ve been lax keeping up with much in this thread out of fear of swamping the thread with posts (and also because I’m naturally lazy, mustn’t leave that out of the account. ) I’m pretty sure this means I’ve inadvertently skipped over at least one tag request for discussion already, maybe two. But I did notice the latest one!
First, this would necessarily refer to the lapsed believer, not simply to the unbeliever – which fits the context of the warning, since this was aimed directly at the apostles and chief disciples (and also fits a similar warning from Christ about how they, being the salt of the world, should not lose their saltiness.)
Second, the salt in this case (and in a parallel statement reported by GosLuke if I recall correctly) refers not to the believer per se (that’s in a related but different saying), but to the unquenchable fire of Gehenna, “the fire the eonian”. That’s what Jesus says shall be salting everyone. (The second half of verse 49 is about equally attested as the lack of it, with a small but solid weight toward the lack of it in earlier texts; but its inclusion, whether original or not, picks up the Temple imagery of salting meat for sacrifice after being cleaned in the “sea of fire”, the basin of washing before the throne-symbol which being mirrored with glass on the inside reflected the light of surrounding torches so as to look like a pool of fire. The point was to make unclean meat clean and acceptable to God.) The KJV is actually a bit weak on translating salt being “good”; in Greek the term is stronger, like “ideal” or “the best of things” in English. That could admittedly be used as casual hyperbole, but being at peace with one another under God doesn’t seem to me like less than the best of things or the ideal result!
So what Jesus is warning about here, is not (directly though indirectly) the believer becoming unsalty, but about the fire of Gehenna becoming unsalty.
But how could “the fire the eonian” itself ever become unsalty? Especially if there is only one “the fire the eonian”, namely the Holy Spirit?!
I don’t think it can – especially not in trinitarian theology, the Holy Spirit couldn’t be retracting the intention to bring those who dishonor the Son and the Father to honor the Son and the Father. But Christian teachers (like the apostles and chief disciples) could teach that the Fire either stops salting everyone or never even had the intention to salt some people at all (roughly Arm and Calv soteriologies, with variations). They would be making the salt unsalty, or making it out to be unsalty rather. This has pretty huge topical relevance for how Matthew reports the end of this scene, with Simon Peter coming back to Jesus and whining about looking for limits to how far he must forgive his brother and being hit with the parable of the unforgiving chief servant.
Such a teaching (to borrow from one of Jesus’ parallel statements on the topic), of the salt becoming unsalty, would be worthy only of being thrown out to be trampled underfoot by men!
In summary, it’s a statement about the purpose of the fire of Gehenna and the scope of that purpose, to salt everyone in such a way that they will be at peace with each other, plus a warning that this shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that the purpose will ever change. It is not, strictly speaking, testimony that the purpose shall be achieved – when I first noticed it long ago, after discovering that trinitarian theism necessarily involves God intending and acting to save all sinners from sin and persisting originally at this until He gets it done, I thought it could still fit an ongoing stalemate. That would still, technically speaking, be Christian universalism in the most minimal possible sense, since God wouldn’t be ceasing to act toward leading all sinners to repent and come to properly honor justice and love (even to honor the justice of their own whole-ruination); He wouldn’t be succeeding for some sinners, but not from ceasing to act and not from having never acted. Many years later I was ironically amused to see Rob Bell take basically that position in Love Wins – his final position in the book isn’t that Love will surely win, but that Love will surely not ever finally lose. It’s a half-step beyond Lewis’ position, because Bell doesn’t turn around at last and claim that Love ceases to keep acting toward saving some sinners from sin. Rob affirms the scope and the persistence continue, but doesn’t affirm that God will surely succeed in the continuing scope and persistence. (In that book; he might have changed his mind on some point since then.)
There is, however, direct testimony nearby in the scene, in Matthew’s report (which Luke connects to topically, too, later in another scene with many calls back to this scene, including for connecting Jesus’ rebuke of the apostles here to the parable of the Rich Man in the fire of hades after death), that God/Christ shall in fact succeed in bringing home all the lost sheep. Which I already knew of course, although I hadn’t ever noticed its direct connection to the salting-with-fire material. (In fact I wouldn’t notice its connections until a few years later when working on my Gospel harmonization project.) So the local context does go the distance in successful salvation of all those who are lost. Total scope plus total persistence plus total final victory equals more than just a technically minimum universal salvation.