How radical is this statement: All things indeed are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything, (1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23).
This is another of Paul's revolutionary, un-categorical statements about the nature of actions. In his fight against Jewish legalism, Paul laid the foundation for our understanding of what exactly makes an act holy or unholy. To the Romans, he said "all things are clean..." and "nothing is unclean of itself."
In our present text, Paul clearly says that no deed is beyond the scope of acceptability for him. "All things are lawful." This puts the lie again to the prevailing idea that some things are just inherently unlawful. Paul understood that no act is basically immoral or sinful. He knew that the moral quality of all acts is inherent only in the motive of the doer, or the effect of the act on others. Therefore Paul could virtually do anything he wished, so far as the act itself is concerned. In these verses, his only caveat lies in the realm of what is "profitable," and what might "master" him.
Whether an act is "profitable" to a person is determined by the effect of that act on one's life and person. This is something that can be determined only by the individual involved. One must choose for oneself what is or is not profitable, and is free to choose to do that for which he does not condemn himself, (cf. Romans 14:14, 20, 22).
And Paul's personal determination was that he would not surrender personal control to any activity. He would not be "mastered" by what he chose to enjoy. The inclination is for us to say "then it is sinful to become enslaved to a habit." But that is not Paul's word. That is our legalism running too far with what he said. In Paul's words, this is a matter of his personal self-discipline. He does not lay down a law that condemns "bad habits." Habitual use of any good thing is not sinful just because of the "habit." If "all things are clean" and if "all things are lawful for me," then habitual use of them cannot make them sinful. There is a vast difference between the words "I will not be mastered by anything," and "It is a sin to be mastered by anything." The first is Paul's inspired statement. The second is our legalist, illegitimate, human opinion.
Note too that Paul did not say it is sin to choose what is not profitable. That is also an interpretation made up by humans. "Sin" and "unprofitable" are not synonyms. What is profitable to me may not be profitable to another. Each one must decide for themselves what they approve of. They are free to choose because, all things are indeed lawful. It is circumstance that makes inherently lawful deeds to be either profitable or unprofitable. To drink wine, for example, in the presence of one whose conscience may be compromised by my example, would be unprofitable to that person and to myself. But to drink wine in different circumstances would be profitable — at least to me.
Each person must be allowed to decide for themselves what they will or will not do, and whether any act is "profitable." This is another case of letting "each man be fully convinced in his own mind," (Romans 14:5). If you smoking a cigar and having a glass of wine each day is "unprofitable" to you, then please, don't do it! But your opinion on such matters is in no sense, and to no degree, normative for anyone else. Others may freely choose what you eschew, and enjoy those things with clear conscience.
Which brings us to this: Why is my freedom judged by another man's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? Whether then you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God, (1 Corinthians 10:29-31).
Paul makes it absolutely clear that no one has the right to sit as judge of another's personal conscience. Paul's freedom to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols, was unquestionable. The only question Paul needed to ask was "can I eat this meat in a way that does not offend my brother?" Eating this meat would be "lawful," but offending a brother by exercising his liberty would not be "profitable." And since he refused to be "mastered" by his desire for such meat, he would forego eating it if it would hurt his weak-conscience brother.
But the ball is totally in Paul's court! He would not allow someone else's conscience to take away his liberty. He would eat such meat if he chose, and give thanks to God for it. Therefore he would not permit others to slander him for using the liberty he received from Christ.
The key here is that the only restrictions to our liberty, is the effect of our action on weak brothers. If using my liberty will harm them by causing them to lose faith, or by encouraging them to do what for them would be sin, then Paul would forego his liberty. So should we. But if he could enjoy his liberty in private so that others are not offended, then he is free to do so. And so are we. God made all things to be enjoyed and one who loves Him realizes that all His creation is good and is intended for our satisfaction and pleasure.
When love for others fills our heart, and we use our freedom in such a way that no one else is harmed, then we eat or drink and do whatever we do with thankfulness and thus do all to the glory of God. God is glorified when we fully enjoy His creation and give Him thanks for it.