How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Ben johnson]

Sure , as a general rule scripture is very clear , you reap what you sow , you get what you pay for .......

.....but there is also another "law" , it's called Grace ; you get what you don't deserve , and you don't get what you do deserve

We don't deserve salvation; that's why it's called "grace". But if we do not participate in our own election, then why does Paul say "Take care about yourself and your teaching; PERSEVERE in these things; as you do you will save yourselves..."?
Why does he say "To those WHO by doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, (they receive) eternal life; but to those WHO are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrightoueness, (they receive) wrath and indignation (Hell)." 1Tim4:16, Rom2:6-8

sure , and there are times when God does delight in the death of sinners ....... or do you only quote a scripture that supports your own position ?

He does, but He doesn't? Have you found a contradiction in Scripture? Show me where "God delights in the death of sinners", rather than "desiring all men (kings and ALL in authority) to be saved and come to knowledge of God". (1Tim2:1-4)

There's no way that verse works with "sovereignly-granted-repentance". Repentance flows in direction, from man-to-God --- not God-to-man.

It works just fine Ben , and all readers will take care and notice how you have avoided the scriptures presented to you by brother Rick..

We've discussed them plenty; if I answer, will you discuss the verses Ben has asserted?

RickOtto
Repentance IS a gift!!!

Ac 5:31 - Show Context Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Do you know what "grant" is, in the Greek? "Didomi". Look it up --- it includes "give to one asking", to "grant or permit".

Ac 11:18 - Show Context When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Do we really need to discuss this one? The Gentiles have been granted the opportunity to be saved".

2Co 7:9 - Show Context Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.

An excellent quotation; that verse was intended to be in my text --- not sure it is.

Was "repentance", God's idea? Or did it consequent from their sorrow? 180 degrees off from your position, isn't it?

Ro 2:4 - Show Context Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Do you presume on God's patience and kindness and forebearance? God's patience and kindness is MEANT to lead you to REPENTANCE; but by your stubborn and unrepentant heart you're making God MAD!"

Again, that's as far from "monergistic-granted/gifted repentance" as can get...

2Ti 2:25 - Show Context In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Again, what's "give/grant", in the Greek?

Every verse you quote, stands against Calvinism; and that's because all of Scripture stands against it.

I mean you no disrespect, Cygnus; you are intelligent, and it's very clear your heart yearns after Christ. Soon, you'll admit that Scripture fully conflicts "predestined salvation".

 

[nobdysfool]

Yeah, Ben, when pigs fly....

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, NBF! I had a trip out to California recently; the woman sitting next to me was a great conversationist. She was travelling to a new job, going to stay with relatives.

Her beloved pet pot-bellied-pig was secured in a comfortable carrier, in the heated hold.

...he was FLYING...

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi, NBF! I had a trip out to California recently; the woman sitting next to me was a great conversationist. She was travelling to a new job, going to stay with relatives.

Her beloved pet pot-bellied-pig was secured in a comfortable carrier, in the heated hold.

...he was FLYING...

Not under his own power, though...and everyone knows that is what is meant by the saying.

Nice try, but no soup for you!

 

[Rick Otto]

Funniest thing that you ever saw...
-from a song us street musicians made up about the horse patrol.

 

[Ben johnson]

Not under his own power, though...and everyone knows that is what is meant by the saying.

Oh NOW you're adding CONDITIONS....

 

[nobdysfool]

Oh NOW you're adding CONDITIONS....

No, just remaining true to the original intent of the the saying, and not allowing you to redefine it.

 

[cygnusx1]

He does, but He doesn't? Have you found a contradiction in Scripture? Show me where "God delights in the death of sinners", rather than "desiring all men (kings and ALL in authority) to be saved and come to knowledge of God". (1Tim2:1-4)

You really amaze me ben , you continue to show you have a biased view of scripture , this is becoming something of a habit that you wish to see it stated in scripture what a Calvinist says , first you had no knowledge of Judas stealing from the common purse , but you see fit to declare Judas was saved , now you question whether it ever states that God can delight in the death of sinners , but you seem sure scripture cannot say anything like that .......... it becomes very clear to all that with this lack of a Biblical knowledge you are left with a much biased and ONE SIDED view of God's word , which is not at all a good recommendation for one writing any book on soteriology.

Be advised scripture does state God does not delight in the death of a sinner (EZ 18)

but also God can delight in the death of sinners ....... to your mind you will seem like a contradiction , IT IS NOT.

One merely has to look at the context , God does not 'in and of itself ' delight in the death of a sinner ..... yet God can and God does delight in the death of a sinner IN SO FAR AS HIS JUSTICE IS MADE KNOWN!

here's what you lack ;




Deuteronomy 28:63 where Moses warns of coming judgment on unrepentant Israel.

And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you​

 

[cygnusx1]

I mean you no disrespect, Cygnus; you are intelligent, and it's very clear your heart yearns after Christ. Soon, you'll admit that Scripture fully conflicts "predestined salvation".

you can wake up now ben ......... you were only dreaming!

 

[Ben johnson]

You really amaze me Ben, you continue to show you have a biased view of scripture...

No, my friend --- I "continue to present a view supported at every turn by many Scriptures"....

this is becoming something of a habit that you wish to see it stated in scripture what a Calvinist says , first you had no knowledge of Judas stealing from the common purse...

I didn't remember the verse. Jesus clearly said "I chose all twelve of you, and ordained you to bear fruit and that your fruit remain."

It's been suggested that God, absolute perfection, ultimate righteousness, ordained Judas' sin. That some here don't see a problem with that suggestion, concerns me greatly...

but you see fit to declare Judas was saved...

So Jesus chose Judas, never-saved always-reprobate, to be a DISCIPLE. Couldn't be --- Jesus "chose all twelve, and ordained them that they bear fruit, and their fruit remain". And contextually Jesus was concerned that the rest of the Disciples could ALSO leave/forsake Him.

...just as He was concerned for Peter, in Lk22:32...

now you question whether it ever states that God can delight in the death of sinners , but you seem sure scripture cannot say anything like that .......... it becomes very clear to all that with this lack of a Biblical knowledge you are left with a much biased and ONE SIDED view of God's word , which is not at all a good recommendation for one writing any book on soteriology.

Be advised scripture does state God does not delight in the death of a sinner (EZ 18)

...you do understand that verse speaks of "eternal death"?

but also God can delight in the death of sinners ....... to your mind you will seem like a contradiction , IT IS NOT.

One merely has to look at the context , God does not 'in and of itself ' delight in the death of a sinner ..... yet God can and God does delight in the death of a sinner IN SO FAR AS HIS JUSTICE IS MADE KNOWN!

here's what you lack ;

Deuteronomy 28:63 where Moses warns of coming judgment on unrepentant Israel.
And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you...

....and, you understand this verse is speaking of "you will be banned from the Promised Land"?

"As the Lord delighted over you to prosper you and multiply you, so the Lord will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you shall be torn from the land where you are entering... And the Lord shall scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other."

If they were "cast into Hell", it would be kinda hard to then "scatter across the earth", wouldn't it?

In Deut28, there are several conditionals:
"If you do not obey the Lord your God and obeserve His commandments..." (15)
"If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law" (58)

You're trying to make this passage from Deuteronomy fit "predestination"; yet contextually it clearly says "if you disobey God, then He will _______".

By seeking verses which "conflict the establised volitionality of belief", you would be "establishing contradiction in Scripture" (meaning, far better to deal with the verses we've been discussing, rather than to try to find other verses that conflict.)

I mean no disrespect to you, Cygnus; you are a valued brother in Christ to me.

you can wake up now ben ......... you were only dreaming!

Sometimes dreams, can become reality.

 

[cygnusx1]

No, my friend --- I "continue to present a view supported at every turn by many Scriptures".... I didn't remember the verse. Jesus clearly said "I chose all twelve of you, and ordained you to bear fruit and that your fruit remain."

done that one , and you are not addressing my arguement , ''
.......... ben , you continue to show you have a biased view of scripture , this is becoming something of a habit that you wish to see it stated in scripture what a Calvinist says , first you had no knowledge of Judas stealing from the common purse , but you see fit to declare Judas was saved , now you question whether it ever states that God can delight in the death of sinners , but you seem sure scripture cannot say anything like that .......... it becomes very clear to all that with this lack of a Biblical knowledge you are left with a much biased and ONE SIDED view of God's word , which is not at all a good recommendation for one writing any book on soteriology.

It's been suggested that God, absolute perfection, ultimate righteousness, ordained Judas' sin. That some here don't see a problem with that suggestion, concerns me greatly...

don't see why , it's Biblical ..... did God ordain Joseph to be sold as a slave , yes or no ?

So Jesus chose Judas, never-saved always-reprobate, to be a DISCIPLE. Couldn't be --- Jesus "chose all twelve, and ordained them that they bear fruit, and their fruit remain". And contextually Jesus was concerned that the rest of the Disciples could ALSO leave/forsake Him.

you still reject Judas was a thief ......... or perhaps you think thieves are saved . either way you continue to avoid the arguement.

...just as He was concerned for Peter, in Lk22:32......you do understand that verse speaks of "eternal death"?
....and, you understand this verse is speaking of "you will be banned from the Promised Land"?

None shall be lost except the son of hell.

"As the Lord delighted over you to prosper you and multiply you, so the Lord will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you shall be torn from the land where you are entering... And the Lord shall scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other."

If they were "cast into Hell", it would be kinda hard to then "scatter across the earth", wouldn't it?

In Deut28, there are several conditionals:
"If you do not obey the Lord your God and obeserve His commandments..." (15)
"If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law" (58)

You're trying to make this passage from Deuteronomy fit "predestination"; yet contextually it clearly says "if you disobey God, then He will _______".

Stop right there ben , and cease from fixating every single paragraph and sentence as about prede4stination , boy how you are fixated ........ I thought Calvinists like predestination but they don't eat and drink it.

I am not talking here about predestination , or election or millenialism or how much a loaf of bread costs ....... concentrate friend.........

I am merely pointing out that God can and God does say He will delight in the destruction of some .. , and many were destroyed ... and God delighted to destroy them .... have you never read God will laugh at sinners when they call on Him to save them but all too late?

I am not here discussing conditions , they are irrelevant just as predestination is not germaine to what is on the table , the fact is you have a one sided view of scripture because you don't know the scriptures well enough (Judas where does it say he stole from the bag?) and you will only recite what you have heard over and over , never looking further than the small ground you are familiar with , even Apollos was taken to one side. for further instruction... Acts 18

These are scriptures that reset the balance.

Be advised scripture does state God does not delight in the death of a sinner (EZ 18)

but also God can delight in the death of sinners ....... to your mind you will seem like a contradiction , IT IS NOT.

One merely has to look at the context , God does not 'in and of itself ' delight in the death of a sinner ..... yet God can and God does delight in the death of a sinner IN SO FAR AS HIS JUSTICE IS MADE KNOWN!

here's what you lack ;





Deuteronomy 28:63 where Moses warns of coming judgment on unrepentant Israel.

And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you​

By seeking verses which "conflict the establised volitionality of belief", you would be "establishing contradiction in Scripture" (meaning, far better to deal with the verses we've been discussing, rather than to try to find other verses that conflict.)

I mean no disrespect to you, Cygnus; you are a valued brother in Christ to me.
Sometimes dreams, can become reality.

I mean no direspect ben but some dreams are just that dreams.

 

[Rick Otto]

Sovereignity of Man's Volition" is the contention.
Again, for the umpteenth time, Predestination does not replace, destroy, nullify, robotize, or puppetize volition.
It merely predestines it.
Thanks for the personal respect, but now try to respect the idea.

 

[cygnusx1]

Sovereignity of Man's Volition" is the contention.
Again, for the umpteenth time, Predestination does not replace, destroy, nullify, robotize, or puppetize volition.
It merely predestines it.
Thanks for the personal respect, but now try to respect the idea.

that's right bro ... much to the frustration of some here , we accept and proclaim all men have volition.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

Again, for the umpteenth time, Predestination does not replace, destroy, nullify, robotize, or puppetize volition.
It merely predestines it.

And..... for the upmteenth time, that is precisely the problem. It is an oxymoran definition. The two are opposites.
Above in a post, Cygnus, once again is saying that Joseph's brothers were decreed to sin. We know already that Judas was decreed to sin, even Peter was decreed to sin. You have stated many times that man is not free to choose, man has no choice, cannot even lose faith. Once decreed to be saved, man cannot do anything to lose his soul.
Could you explain just how predestination, or decreed acts of God are volitional?
Under any theological definition they have always been opposite. Your view has God committing all the sin of believers. Or do you also hold the view that believers do not sin, thus saves God from sin?
You have yet to explain just what a believer is being judged for, as well as an unbeliever.
Or, better, why is there a judgment at all. From what I have been reading on these posts, it is moot.

 

[cygnusx1]

Otto,

And..... for the upmteenth time, that is precisely the problem. It is an oxymoran definition. The two are opposites.
Above in a post, Cygnus, once again is saying that Joseph's brothers were decreed to sin. We know already that Judas was decreed to sin, even Peter was decreed to sin. You have stated many times that man is not free to choose, man has no choice, cannot even lose faith. Once decreed to be saved, man cannot do anything to lose his soul.
Could you explain just how predestination, or decreed acts of God are volitional?
Under any theological definition they have always been opposite. Your view has God committing all the sin of believers. Or do you also hold the view that believers do not sin, thus saves God from sin?
You have yet to explain just what a believer is being judged for, as well as an unbeliever.
Or, better, why is there a judgment at all. From what I have been reading on these posts, it is moot.

you must first distinguish between certainty and necessity (force) .

here ;


WHAT IS REQUIRED IN GOD'S PART FOR THE NON ELECT SINNER TO CONTINUE IN SIN?
The non-elect man, then, like the elect, being already in the state of sin and guilt by the free fall in Adam, nothing is requisite in order to make it certain that he will for ever remain in this state but the purpose of God not to restrain and change the action of his free will and self-will in sin by regenerating it. To denominate such merely permissive action as this, compulsion, is absurd. And yet this permissive action of God secures the certainty of everlasting sin and death in the case of the non-elect, just as infallibly as the efficient action of God secures the certainty of everlasting holiness and life in the case of the elect.

WHAT MAKES THE CERTAINTY OF SIN IN THE NON ELECT SINNER SO CERTAIN?
But in the former instance the certainty is secured wholly by the action of the sinner himself, while in the latter instance it is secured by the action of the Holy Spirit within the sinner. This leaving of the sinful will to its own movement makes endless sin an infallible certainty. For the sinner himself will and can never regenerate himself; and if God has in his sovereignty decided and purposed not to regenerate him, his willing and endless continuance in sin and death is certain. Every Christian knows that if, in his unregeneracy, he had been left wholly to his own free will, without any restraint from God, he would infallibly have gone from bad to worse for ever and ever.

TO RECAP…WHAT ARE THE TWO WAYS IN WHICH GOD MAKES THESE THINGS SURE WITHOUT VIOLATING THE WILL OF THE SINNER?
In these two ways of efficiency and permission, God 'foreordains' and makes certain two things that unquestionably 'come to pass,' namely, the everlasting holiness and life of some men, and the everlasting sin and death of some men; 'yet so as thereby God is not the author of sin; nor is violence done to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty of second causes taken away, but rather established'.

RELATE THESE THINGS TO THE SIN OF THE PEOPLE AT THE CROSS:
When God predetermined from eternity not to restrain and prevent 'Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and all the people of Israel', from crucifying his beloved Son, but to leave them to their own wicked inclination and voluntary action in the case, he made this crucifixion a certainty, but not a necessity, as is evinced by the 'woe' pronounced upon them by the Son of God. Luke 22: 22. Men with hearts and dispositions full of hatred toward the Saviour of the world, if left to themselves are infallibly certain to cry, 'Crucify him; crucify him'. 19:6-15.

WHY CALVINISTS REJECT THE IDEA OF BARE PERMISSION:
The Confession (Section 6 paragraph 1 and also in the Larger Catechism Question 19) declared that God 'permits' sin, but that it is not a 'bare permission'. (Section 5 paragraph 4) The permission that is adopted by the Assembly is one that occurs by a voluntary decision of God which he need not have made, had he so pleased. He might have decided not to permit sin; in which case it would not have entered his universe. The 'bare permission' which is rejected by the Assembly means that God makes no voluntary decision at all in the case; that he could not have prevented the fall of angels and men, but stands 'like an idle spectator', having no control over the event which he witnesses.

WHAT DID AUGUSTINE WISELY OBSERVE CONCERNING GOD'S ABILITY TO BRING GOOD OUT OF EVIL?
Augustine makes the following statement in his Enchiridion, Ch. 100: 'In a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to God's will [of desire] does not defeat his will [of decree]. For it would not be done did he not permit it, and of course his permission is not unwilling, but willing; nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done except that in his omnipotence he can turn evil into good'.


http://www.corkfpc.com/shedd.html

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

you must first distinguish between certainty and necessity (force) .

God in His forenowledge along with His providential will can know what will take place. This is your good examples of Judas, Peter and even Christ at the cruxcifiction.
Necessity is that man must do what God directs which is what you actually have Peter and Judas doing. They were decreed to act the way they did. Foreknowledge has no bearing on it whatsoever. It was simply decreed, that is necessity. Your whole view is predicated on predestination, the decree that some men will live in eternity with Christ. They had no choice, Adam had no choice but to do what was decreed, to fall. They have no volitional choice, or cannot rationalize, cannot reason, cannot do but what is necessary. (necessity)
Force may also be that man was created with a will, but God forces His will upon man's will. It is much the same as necessity, except one allows man to have a will but totally useless.

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnus,


God in His forenowledge along with His providential will can know what will take place. This is your good examples of Judas, Peter and even Christ at the cruxcifiction.

nothing FICTIONAL about it , man do I detest that spelling mistake RG.

Necessity is that man must do what God directs which is what you actually have Peter and Judas doing. They were decreed to act the way they did. Foreknowledge has no bearing on it whatsoever. It was simply decreed, that is necessity. Your whole view is predicated on predestination, the decree that some men will live in eternity with Christ. They had no choice, Adam had no choice but to do what was decreed, to fall. They have no volitional choice, or cannot rationalize, cannot reason, cannot do but what is necessary. (necessity)
Force may also be that man was created with a will, but God forces His will upon man's will. It is much the same as necessity, except one allows man to have a will but totally useless.

no , that isn't my view.

when you have finished telling everyone what my view is , perhaps you might ask me.

men make choices every day ........ men are not forced /compelled to sin.

God knowing all things , knows exactly what to permit , and what not to permit .... all things even permission are by God's will , the decree of God is not simply God applying what will be , but equally permitting what will be.


maybe you should read the WCF , then you will no longer need to guess a Calvinist view. Just a thought.

See our Confession, Chapter IX., Section 1: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.”


"Calvin maintains moral responsibility by appealing to the distinction between necessity and compulsion. Humans sin by necessity, but they are not compelled to sin. Sin is desired, so it is culpable, even though it is desired of necessity. That is, human beings do what they want, so they are responsible for what they do, even if they cannot help what they want. Jonathan Edwards turns this distinction between necessity and compulsion into the classic defense of the Calvinist view of the will in his On the Freedom of the Will, written nearly two centuries after Calvin."

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:oHV3iXusdzsJ:www.efn.org/~ssb/papers/freewill.htm

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

no , that isn't my view.
when you have finished telling everyone what my view is , perhaps you might ask me.

You say that, then confirm what I just stated. You do not understand the definitions. You have created whole new ones, just to support an incorrect view of man's relationship with God.

men make choices every day ........ men are not forced /compelled to sin.

You spent several posts making it quite emphatic that Peter had no choice. God had decreed that He would deny Christ. Judas the same way. God does not need to decree to allow Himself permission to have something occur. Knowing what will happen, does not necessitate a decree by God to have it come to pass. This is exactly what happened with Judas and Peter. God knows, but did not decree. He does not allow it by decree either. He gave man a will and the capability to use it, by placing a choice upon man. Adam was not decreed to take the choice he made. God did not need to decree His permissive will to have it occur either. Man is fully capable of doing it by his own will. that is the ONLY reason man can be judged. Any other way, it cannot be man, but God who caused it, necessitated the outcome and man is not a volitional being. The definition that you posted by some reformed theologian also confuses the difference between how God uses the will of man and providence.
You cannot have it both ways. Either man is created with a will, independent of God, or man is decreed to act of necessity. It is not half and half either.

God knowing all things , knows exactly what to permit , and what not to permit .... all things even permission are by God's will , the decree of God is not simply God applying what will be , but equally permitting what will be.

He decreed that man would be created in His Image which included a will independent of His will. That is the meaning of being rational, to be able to discern options, determine influences, to create desire. That is what distinquishes man from animals. He has a soul. That necessitates the freedom of choice. God does not need to decree His permissive will. He simply allows that man sinned. He did not cause man to sin, does not even tempt man to sin. Did not decree that man would sin.

maybe you should read the WCF , then you will no longer need to guess a Calvinist view. Just a thought.

50 years ago, that might have been beneficial. But today, it is very difficult to really understand just what a Calvinists believes. It is changing constantly and many views are being established, all under the name of Calvinism. But what Calvin believed is irrelevant anyway. It is what the Bible says, what the Apostles taught, it is the Gospel given by Christ that matters.It is what He has preserved for our benefit and for our salvation.

See our Confession, Chapter IX., Section 1: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.”

And what is different? it is contrived to support the incorrect view of predestination. It creates it own contradiction which you have pointed out innumerable times. That is why the theology of Calvinism does not align even within itself. Notwithstanding what scripture actually teaches.

 

[nobdysfool]

You are hardly an expert on Reformed Theology, RG. You've engaged in presuming to tell us what we believe, and wrapping yourself in the cloak of the Tradition of the EO church, complete with it's teaching that you cannot possibly see for yourself what the Bible teaches, but rather you let others do your thinking for you.

God gave us a mind, and He expects us to use it. We are actually thinking about what we believe, and examining it. You want us to give that up and become non-thinking robots like you. Ain't gonna happen.....

 

[Rick Otto]

God in His forenowledge along with His providential will can know what will take place. This is your good examples of Judas, Peter and even Christ at the cruxcifiction.

Foreknowlege is a result of having predetermined in divine council, that which would be (all creation).
Foreknowlege is not mere clairvoyance of an undetermined future. There can be no such thing as undetermined future (in the ultimate, the divine, sense).

Necessity is that man must do what God directs which is what you actually have Peter and Judas doing.

I'm sure they felt that what they did, they needed to do.

They were decreed to act the way they did.

"Predestined".

Foreknowledge has no bearing on it whatsoever.

Foreknowlege bears on all creation. All creation was known before it was created.

It was simply decreed, that is necessity. Your whole view is predicated on predestination, the decree that some men will live in eternity with Christ. They had no choice, Adam had no choice but to do what was decreed, to fall. They have no volitional choice, or cannot rationalize, cannot reason, cannot do but what is necessary. (necessity)

Wrong.They had choice. They were predestined to have choice, as much as they were predestined choose.

Force may also be that man was created with a will, but God forces His will upon man's will.

Exactly. I didn't choose to be born. It was God's providential force. Paul didn't choose to believe, he was forced off his horse & blinded for three days - no "gentle knocking at the door" of his stone-cold Christian killing heart.

It is much the same as necessity, except one allows man to have a will but totally useless.

Much the same. but not identical, not useless,eg. God willing, you could've chosen a different word than useless, like "predestined", or "predictable", or a phrase like "subject to God's plan", or somethin' like that.