!

"#$ 55,4 ,2012, 801-806

lIRS1 CORIN1lIANS 10:13:
A RLJOINDLR 1O S1LVLN CO\AN
PAUL lIMLS

I am grateul or the opportunity to interact with Steen Cowan on the issue
o the will in 1 Corinthians 10:13. In my original article, I argued that 1 Cor 10:13
seems to necessitate a libertarian orm o ree will in order to make sense and that
consequently eery time a belieer sins, he or she could hae done otherwise. Cow-
an has responded, God makes a way o escape or the Christian by encouraging
and helping him in the progressie deelopment o a irtuous character.`
1
Cowan
deelops the ollowing lines o argument: ,1, the broader context o 1 Corinthians
9-10 argues or a compatibilistic sense in 1 Cor 10:13, ,2, key texts rom elsewhere
in Scripture ,Rom :14-25, Phil 2:12-13, and 1 1im 4:, support a compatibilistic
interpretation o 1 Cor 10:13, and ,3, my iew o 1 Cor 10:13 would hae a serious-
ly negatie eect on the doctrine o sanctiication. I will respond to each o these
points.
I. RLSPONSL
lirst, howeer, I must acknowledge that my original article may hae been
oerly anthropocentric. 1he ocus o 1 Cor 10:13 is, irst and oremost, on God as
the gracious proider or the escape route. Indeed, the structure o the erse itsel
points to this: God is the aithul one ,, who stands juxtaposed with all the
railty o mankind. I I hae neglected the theocentric nature o this passage, I hope
to rectiy that by stressing it in this paragraph. 1he central character o 1 Cor 10:13
is God himsel, and anyone who preaches this passage should ocus on the gra-
ciousness o God more than the ability o humans.
2

Neertheless, I beliee my oerall thesis, that a Christian can always resist the
temptation to sin ,at any particular point in time,, still stands. In response to Cow-
an, I would like to begin by pointing the reader to a signiicant dierence in how he
and I iew the relationship o sel-discipline to resisting temptation. lor Cowan,
godliness ,and no doubt godly choices, are the outcome o a gradual process o
training.`
3
1hus, God`s escape rom temptation unctions by enabling us to pro-
gressiely deelop the necessary irtues-habits o character-that will, when ac-

Paul limes is a Ph.D. student at Southeastern Baptist 1heological Seminary, 120 S. \ingate Street,
\ake lorest, NC 258.
1
Steen B. Cowan, Does 1 Corinthians 10:13 Imply Libertarian lreedom A Reply to Paul A.
limes,` !"#$ 55 ,2012, 99. In his response, Cowan correctly notes that my basic thesis has been
argued beore, speciically citing an article by \illiam Lane Craig ,p. 95, n. 2,. I had been unaware o
Craig`s work until now, and I appreciate Cowan pointing this out.
2
I am grateul to my pastor or stressing this point.
3
Cowan, Does 1 Corinthians 10:13 Imply Libertarian lreedom` 800.
802 JOURNAL Ol 1lL LVANGLLICAL 1lLOLOGICAL SOCIL1\
quired, motiate us internally to make the right choices.`
4
In this way Cowan seems
to iew resisting temptation as the outcome o, and mostly distinct rom, the pro-
cess o discipline. My response would be to argue that resisting temptation is !"#$ o
sel-discipline and the acquisition o irtues. One does not deelop godly character
irst and then start resisting temptation later. Indeed, many o the irtues Christians
are supposed to acquire through discipline are, in act, the act o resisting certain
temptations. 1he erb sy:s..,:: ,. 25,, or example, is used only one other
time in the N1 ,1 Cor :9,, and there it reers to whether or not one is successully
resisting illicit desires.
5
It would also be logical to assume that, within the context o
Paul`s athletic metaphor, the expression would reer to an athlete keeping himsel
or hersel rom ices. Consequently, I beliee 1 Cor 9:24-2 assumes resistance to
sin as part o the process o godly discipline.
6

1his, then, orms the basis o my response to Cowan on both 1 Cor 9:24-2
and 1 1im 4:. Regarding the ormer, I would ind it odd indeed i actiely resisting
temptation were not, in act, part o the apostle Paul`s practice o sel-control. low,
or example, could the apostle discipline himsel to aoid disqualiication i he were
actiely sinning all along \ould such a person be truly disciplined \ould it not
be better to say that the apostle Paul, in the process o training his body to cheer-
ully accept any circumstances or the sake o the gospel, also actiely trained him-
sel to resist temptation so that he would not be disqualiied rom the ministry
Disqualiication, ater all, is not merely alling into sin but rather something much
more drastic.

I, then, resisting sin is part o sel-discipline, I do not beliee either

4
Ibid., 98.
5
All lexical searches were conducted using &''(#)"*'+ 8.4 ,Oak1ree Sotware, 2009,. Roy L. Ciampa
and Brian S. Rosner aptly sum up the oerall point o 1 Cor :9 when they state, I sexual desire is a
chronic distraction and temptation, disrupting a lie lied out or the gospel, Paul adocates marriage`
,,-+ ./#0$ 1+$$+# $( $-+ 2(#/*$-/"*0 |PN1C, Grand Rapids: Lerdmans, 2010| 288,. In other words, sel-
control here reers to how well one is dealing with sexual temptation. Note that the Greek o 1 Cor :9
does not read i you are 3*"45+ to exercise sel-control,` which would hae most likely required a orm
o either .v:,:: - the ininitie or ic,. - the ininitie ,e.g. Acts 6:10,. Rather, sy:s..v:: is a
present indicatie, and consequently the protasis o this sentence could be understood to mean But i
they are not currently exercising sel-control ..` ,this writer is ully aware, howeer, that any attempt at
exegesis based on the tense o the erb is raught with controersy,.
1he noun cognate sy:s:: likewise seems to reer to resisting ices or temptation. 1he word only
occurs three times in the New 1estament ,Acts 24:25, Gal 5:23, and 2 Pet 1:6,, but the reader should
also note its use in such places as 4 Macc 5:34 ,where the act o sel-control is equated with resisting the
temptation to turn one`s back on the Law |. 33|, and Josephus, &*$6 8.235 ,Jadon resists the hospitality
o the king, or to accept it would hae meant disobeying the Lord`s command, Josephus is retelling the
story o 1 Kings 13:8-9,.
6
lor a discussion o restraint` ,including the concept o sel-control`, in the Christian lie, see
Andreas J. Kostenberger, 78'+55+*'+9 ,-+ 2-"#"'$+# (: ;() "*) $-+ <3#03/$ (: ='-(5"#5> ?/#$3+ ,\heaton:
Crossway, 2011, 128-30. Kostenberger discusses how sel-control is linked both to the control o one`s
temper ,Pro. 14:1, 29, 15:18,` and sexual purity ,1 Cor. :5, 9,.`

Although I do not hold that the term means total apostasy` as some Arminians would, I cannot
deny that :.:,. in the N1 oten portends drastic consequences. See esp. Rom 1:28 and 2 1im 3:8. I
would preer the sense o disqualiication rom ministry` in 1 Cor 9:2, but my point is that Paul is not
disciplining himsel so that he would neer sin, but rather so that he would not become disqualiied.
Part o the process o keeping onesel rom being disqualiied is to resist sin.
lIRS1 CORIN1lIANS 10:13: A RLJOINDLR 1O S1LVLN CO\AN 803
1 Cor 9:24-2 or 1 1im 4: argue against my position. Regarding Cowan`s discus-
sion o the latter, I would simply add that godliness is the result o !"#$ godly choic-
es and sel-discipline. One cannot claim to be godly i they hae not been ,mostly,
resisting temptation all along.
lurthermore, 1 Cor 10:13 was not directed at the apostle Paul, with all his
maturity and discipline.
8
It was directed at a dierse group o Christians, many who
were spiritually immature and struggling with all sorts o sins ,e.g. 1 Corinthians 5
and the tolerance o a sexual sin that appalled een the Gentiles,. 1hese belieers
were clearly in the same danger o sinning as the Lxodus generation ,1 Cor 10:6-12,
esp. . 12,. I, at the moment the epistle was read, at least some o these Corinthi-
ans lacked the sel-discipline to resist the sin that would assail them in the coming
hours, then both the admonition in 1 Cor 10:13 and the command immediately
ollowing ,. 14, all lat. Indeed, could not the Corinthians hae responded to the
epistle by arguing that they currently lacked the sel-discipline or godly character to
escape, and that it would be awhile beore they could actually obey Paul`s com-
mands in 1 Cor 10:-10, 14
Regarding Cowan`s discussion o Phil 2:12-13 and 1 1im 4:, I am somewhat
uncomortable with Cowan`s suggestion that under my iew the apostle Paul would
expect the belieer to aoid sin by acting independently o his desires and alues
as limes would hae it` and that a Christian has the ability to either sin or not to
sin in that situation independently o his desires and alues` ,the key word in each
case being independently`,.
9
Instead, I argued in my original article that
a Christian chooses !%#&%%' his or her desires and thus controls the )#*%'+#$) o
those desires. lurthermore, simply because choice may be inluenced by other
actors ,including spiritual disposition, does not necessarily mean that choice is
determined by those actors.
10

1hus the belieer does not act independently o his or her desires and alues, and
the belieer`s actions will neer be based o o a non-existent desire or alue, all o
his or her actions stem rom something that is already there.
11
\hat I am arguing,
howeer, is that a belieer has ,"-.%#/'+ desires and is orced to choose between
them. 1he presence o the loly Spirit guarantees that a belieer will hae the
right` alues and desires while the possession o a corrupted human nature results
in the wrong` alues and desires.
Since Cowan`s argument rom Rom :14-25 rests on one particular interpre-
tation, I will keep my comments brie. I am uncomortable with a theology that

8
1his, howeer, raises the question: could the apostle Paul hae sinned
9
Cowan, Does 1 Corinthians 10:13 Imply Libertarian lreedom` 800 and 9, respectiely.
10
Paul A. limes, \hen a Christian Sins: 1 Corinthians 10:13 and the Power o Contrary Choice in
Relation to the Compatibilist-Libertarian Debate,` 0123 54 ,2011, 341.
11
1o be air, I did say that Christians may act regardless o their current alue scale` ,limes,
\hen a Christian Sins` 341, Cowan quotes me on p. 96 o Does 1 Corinthians 10:13 Imply Libertar-
ian lreedom`,. Neertheless, I would argue that this is dierent rom saying that a Christian acts /'4%5
.%'4%'#67 o his or her desires altogether. 1he Christian, through the enabling o the loly Spirit, when
aced with competing alues, may change his or her alue scale by resisting temptation. 1he alue
scale,` in my opinion, is descriptie rather than determinatie.
804 JOURNAL Ol 1lL LVANGLLICAL 1lLOLOGICAL SOCIL1\
would say the apostle Paul was truly a slae to sin een ater he was conerted. 1his
seems to contradict the ery point he makes in Romans 6 and 8. As lae-Kyung
Chang notes,
In Rom. 6 and 8, respectiely, Paul makes it clear that being ree under sin`
and being ree rom the law o sin and death` are conditions that are true or
eery Christian. I one is a Christian, then these things are true, i one is not,
they are not true. 1his means that the situation o I` depicted in Rom. :14-25
cannot be that o the normal` Christians, nor o an immature Christian. Nor
can it describe the condition o any Christian liing by the law because the
Christian who is mistakenly liing according to the law is yet a Christian and is
thereore not under sin` or a prisoner o the law o sin.`
12

\ith Chang, then, I would preer to see :14-25 as a typical experience o the
man who is conronted with the law` or perhaps, as Joseph litzmeyer argues, the
iew o unregenerate humanity aced with the Mosaic law-but as seen by a
Christian.`
13
1o suggest that a belieer could eer be a slae` or prisoner` to sin
in a theological sense seems to run counter to Rom 8:2 which indicates that the
belieer is ree rom sin. \et een i, or the sake o argument, the apostle is speak-
ing o his own experience as a belieer, I am not sure that it would support a com-
patibilistic iew, or Rom :15-16 would then hae the belieer acting !"#$%&%' to his
or her desires rather than in accordance with them ,.. y` . y` cs ...
r:cc,.
linally, Cowan has suggested that my argument implies an implausible iew
o sanctiication.`
14
le argues,
So, on limes`s iew, it is conceiable that a particular Christian always, without
exception, chooses to do right-and this regardless o his leel o sanctiication
or maturity. Len more oddly, a Christian, regardless o his leel o Christian
character deelopment, !"()* !"#,-,$.#$)' !/"",. $" &)0&', *" $/. 0%"#1 $/-#1.
15

In response, I would argue once again that a Christian`s leel o sanctiication is
dependent upon his choices, not ice ersa. Neertheless, I would acknowledge
that -# $/."%', it is possible or a Christian to make the right choices consistently
,though I ail to see how this is a problem,. Statistically, howeer, this is unlikely
and irtually impossible. I I may be permitted an athletic analogy, a major league
baseball slugger has the physical ability to hit eery single pitch that comes across
the strike zone into the bleachers. \et the sheer amount o pitches he will ace
makes it statistically unlikely that this will happen eery single time ,physical train-
ing helps, but is not determinatie,. In the same way, a Christian aces an innumer-

12
lae-Kyung Chang, 1he Christian Lie in a Dialectical 1ension Romans :-25 Reconsidered,`
2"34 49 ,200, 268.
13
Ibid. 20, Joseph A. litzmyer, 5"6&#,7 8 2.0 4%&#,)&$-"# 0-$/ 9#$%"*(!$-"# &#* :"66.#$&%' ,AB 33,
New \ork: Doubleday, 1993, 465 ,litzmyer is drawing on the work o Otto Cuss,. lor a similar iew
with a unique twist, see Jair de Almeida, Jr., Uma liptese Plausel da Identidade do Lu` de Romanos
,` ;-*., 5.<"%6&$& 14 ,2009, 101-15 ,Almeida links the I` in Romans to Jesus` dialogue with the rich
man in Mark 10,.
14
Cowan, Does 1 Corinthians 10:13 Imply Libertarian lreedom` 800-1.
15
Ibid. 801. Lmphasis is Cowan`s.
lIRS1 CORIN1lIANS 10:13: A RLJOINDLR 1O S1LVLN CO\AN 805
able amount o temptations oer his or her lie and statistically is unlikely to suc-
cessully resist eery single one.
16

1he other side o Cowan`s argument ,that a Christian could conceiably al-
ways sin, is not necessarily true in my theological scheme, and I hae already dealt
with Cowan`s objection in my original article. In ootnote 61 I argue,
\et simply because a Christian may always possess the ability !"# #" sin, that does
not mean that he or she always possesses the ability #" sin. 1he conerse is not
always logically true ,and is irreleant to 1 Cor 10:13,. It is quite possible that the
Lord, in order to carry out his plan, determines that in a certain circumstance a
particular Christian will not een hae the ability to sin.
1

1he act that Christians always hae the power to resist the deil does not neces-
sarily mean they always hae the power to resist the loly Spirit. In addition, I be-
liee both Cowan and I would agree that, or the Christian who is consistently sin-
ning, the Lord would step in with correctie chastening ater a certain point ,c.
leb 12:5-11,. In addition, I would like to ask ,just as I did in the original article,
how it is that mature Christians, those Christians with godly character, still sin at all
within a compatibilist theology
II. CONCLUSION
I beliee, then, that a compatibilist interpretation o 1 Cor 10:13, as articulat-
ed in Cowan`s article, is not as attractie as a libertarian interpretation. Resisting
temptation is part o godly discipline and should not be iewed as the determina-
tie result o such discipline. Godliness proceeds rom both positie action ,prac-
ticing irtues, and negatie action ,resisting sin,. 1he Christian is godly because he
or she resists temptation rather than resisting temptation because he or she is god-
ly.
18

I suspect there is much more that could be said on the doctrine sanctiication
by both Cowan and mysel. lor uture discussion, I beliee it would be proitable
or both libertarians and compatibilists to address the issue o how one`s iew o
the will actors into personal counseling ,and it is not without a sense o irony that
I acknowledge that some o the best books on counseling hae been written rom a
strong Reormed perspectie,.
19


16
1his means that any orm o sinless perection` is impossible, or een i one reaches the point
that they hae not sinned in an entire year ,an unlikely prospect,, there is no guarantee that he or she will
not sin the next year ,many mature, godly men and women hae allen into sin,. Until the redeemed
state, we will neer achiee perection, as the Apostle Paul himsel seems to indicate in Phil 3:12. I sus-
pect Cowan and I would agree on this, though I wonder i under the compatibilist iew it might be at
least theoretically possible to reach a state o spiritual maturity where it would be impossible both to sin
and to grow lax in sel-discipline.
1
limes, \hen a Christian Sins` 340 n. 61.
18
I will acknowledge, as a riend pointed out, that godly character ,deined as both the deelopment
o irtues and the consistent resisting o temptation, may make it easier to resist sin in the uture. \et
een godly Christians sin, so godly character alone does not account or whether or not one resists sin.
19
lor the compatibilist, I would ask how helpul it would be to admit to an immature Christian
counselee that, in regards to the sin they committed last night, they were incapable o haing resisted it.
806 JOURNAL Ol 1lL LVANGLLICAL 1lLOLOGICAL SOCIL1\
In the end, howeer, I would like to reiterate that not eery choice one makes
is necessarily a libertarian choice. 1o the contrary, there may be some areas where a
compatibilist iew makes sense theologically or practically, possibly including the
belieer`s sinlessness in heaen ,as Cowan has argued in a recent article,.
20
It is not
necessarily a matter o either-or.`
21
lurthermore, there are at least two key points
that I beliee Cowan and I would agree on regarding sanctiication: ,1, nothing
good is possible in the Christian lie without the gracious work o God through the
loly Spirit, and ,2, true sanctiication nonetheless requires genuine eort and work
on the part o the Christian. 1he belieer who truly takes those two points to heart
will consistently work out` his or her salation, regardless o whether or not it is a
compatibilist or libertarian will doing the working.
22


Conersely, as a partial libertarian, I am struggling with how to deal with such issues as addiction, simply
saying Choose to do the right thing and put away your drugs` is unlikely to be suicient help or the
struggling Christian.
20
See Steen B. Cowan, Compatibilism and the Sinlessness o the Redeemed in leaen,` !"#$% "'(
)%#*+,+-%. 28 ,2011, 416-31.
21
I I may expand on an illustration I used in the original article, I would ask readers to consider a
trip to the local ice cream shop. In my case, I most deinitely hae competing desires that I can choose
between. One day I may choose one laor, the next day another ,i.e. libertarian will,, and I would be
hard-pressed to be coninced by a compatibilist that my alue scale changed so radically within the 24
hours separating my decisions ,decisions that I oten cannot een predict until the moment I am making
them,. On the other hand, some laors do not een exist as a legitimate possibility because I hae no
desire or them nor can I create the desire or them ,hence, compatibilism,. In this way, the will makes
both libertarian and compatibilist choices.
22
I am grateul to Dr. Cowan or his dialogue with my work and to Dr. Andreas Kostenberger and
/012 or permitting a rejoinder. I am especially grateul to three riends who read an earlier drat o my
rejoinder and oered insights and critique: Pastor Joe lenson, Michael Stoer, and my ather, John
limes. As always, any errors, misinterpretations, or heresies are the sole responsibility o this writer.