Is 1 Cor. 10:13 A Problem For Calvinists?

No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 1 Cor. 10:13

I’m a Calvinist. The problem is, Molinism, that seductress, tempts me often from my beloved. I have good reasons for being a Calvinist, the main ones being exegetical. Another good reason is that libertarian views of the will seem to imply an implicit denial of the sort of salvation by grace that St. Paul believed in, namely, in that the recipient of said grace cannot boast. If the efficient cause of my salvation is my will, and the efficient cause of someone else’s damnation is their will, I can boast in my choice. This is inconceivable for any self-respecting Pauline theology.

My Calvinism rests on a view of the will known as compatiblism. This view says that free will is compatible with determinism, where free will is defined as the freedom to act according to one’s desires. Opposed to Calvinists are Arminians and Molinists whose view of the will is called libertarianism. Libertarians are incompatiblists, who think that free will and determinism are not harmonious concepts. Freedom for the libertarian is defined as the ability to choose otherwise from what one chooses.

Now, here’s the problem for the Calvinistic compatiblist: how is 1 Cor. 10:13 compatible with their definition of freedom? William Lane Craig explains the problem for the compatiblist:

Imagine then, a situation in which a Christian succumbs to temptation. According to this passage, there was available to him at the time of temptation an escape route that he could have taken; he did not have to yield. He had the power to act otherwise than he did.

Craig goes on to say that any deterministic compatiblist view of the will ends up denying the promise of the passage. This makes sense to me. Is this enough to answer Craig’s siren call? No. But, it is definitely a problem text for the determinist, that is, unless I’m missing something …

Any thoughts?