Only determinism makes things absolutely necessary.
Paul was not remotely claiming that his pulling rank and insisting philemon do the right thing would render it absolutely necessary. Again that would be absurd.
And it is only in this absolute sense of necessary would your argument work...
Your assertion above, even if it were true, would not be evidenced AT ALL in this passage, that has nothing to do with determined.
As I just demonstrated in the last post, the passage has nothing to do with libertarian free will and determinism. Most anyone on your own side would admit that.
And what the necessity was, is defined in the context. Basically Paul pulling rank on him and insisting he take the save back.
And it's absurd to claim that would remove his free will in the libertarian sense.
Ok. Can we agree that PAUL is not using the word "necessity" in a determinitive way?
He is not contrasting a deterministic verses libertarian free choice?
He is not claiming he will literally determine philemons choice by pulling rank on him and demand he take the slave back?