F
Sounds like the perfect verse to misuse and abuse to justify all sorts of sin. Could a person who indulges in sexual immorality use the same verse to support their lifestyle? "Well, it's permissible for me, but not the best choice for me to make, but it is my choice to make in the end and I won't be judged either way." That's basically the logic you're trying to use to apply this verse to the dietary commands (or, even more extreme, you're using this in response to my question about whether or not consuming human flesh and drinking goblets of blood is permissible -- that it is permissible but not beneficial, but technically you can do it if you want).
In fact, that particular citation of that verse is found in a section of verses dealing with sexual immorality, and Paul's directive is to flee from sexual immorality (v. 18a). But we don't need Paul to tell us this here -- it's written throughout the Scriptures that sexual immorality is a sin. So no, sexual immorality is not "permissible but not beneficial" -- God does not permit sexual immorality. Only the most extreme hyper-grace person I can think of would argue that sexual immorality is permissible for the believer -- this would be one who believes that a Christian can basically live any way he or she wants, though some things we do are "not in our best interest" (or "not true expressions of Jesus in us" or whatever their popular phrases they use these days to avoid talking directly about sin), but in the end we are saved either way, so do what you want. They lack the understanding of the difference between "permissible but still forgiven by God's grace and mercy" (wrong thinking) and "an act of disobedient sin but still forgiven by God's grace and mercy" (right thinking). And repentance is the next step.
By the way, many commentaries interpret "everything is permissible for me" as a Corinthian slogan or misunderstanding that Paul is arguing against, not supporting. I.e., "You say that 'everything is permissible' -- but I tell you that you're wrong. For example, sex was created by God to be good but it can be perverted into sin, which you must not do." Bible.org has the following, which I found thought-provoking:
"Freedom does not mean the absence of constraints or moral absolutes. Suppose a skydiver at 10,000 feet announces to the rest of the group, “I’m not using a parachute this time. I want freedom!” The fact is that a skydiver is constrained by a greater law—the law of gravity. But when the skydiver chooses the “constraint” of the parachute, he is free to enjoy the exhilaration. God’s moral laws act the same way: they restrain, but they are absolutely necessary to enjoy the exhilaration of real freedom."
The person in the example above can pursue their "freedom" all they want, but it will lead to their death. Likewise, I will argue that we are constrained by God's Torah-Law, which is to our benefit. Reckless pursuit of "freedom" absent honoring the constraints that God has given will lead to our "death", for the wages of sin are death. In fact, this message is entirely consistent with Scripture -- that true freedom is found in following God's Torah-Law: "I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts" (Psalm 119:45, NIV). I find it a great travesty that many Christians have twisted this by concluding that true "freedom" is from God's Torah-Law instead of walking in accordance with it.
In fact, that particular citation of that verse is found in a section of verses dealing with sexual immorality, and Paul's directive is to flee from sexual immorality (v. 18a). But we don't need Paul to tell us this here -- it's written throughout the Scriptures that sexual immorality is a sin. So no, sexual immorality is not "permissible but not beneficial" -- God does not permit sexual immorality. Only the most extreme hyper-grace person I can think of would argue that sexual immorality is permissible for the believer -- this would be one who believes that a Christian can basically live any way he or she wants, though some things we do are "not in our best interest" (or "not true expressions of Jesus in us" or whatever their popular phrases they use these days to avoid talking directly about sin), but in the end we are saved either way, so do what you want. They lack the understanding of the difference between "permissible but still forgiven by God's grace and mercy" (wrong thinking) and "an act of disobedient sin but still forgiven by God's grace and mercy" (right thinking). And repentance is the next step.
By the way, many commentaries interpret "everything is permissible for me" as a Corinthian slogan or misunderstanding that Paul is arguing against, not supporting. I.e., "You say that 'everything is permissible' -- but I tell you that you're wrong. For example, sex was created by God to be good but it can be perverted into sin, which you must not do." Bible.org has the following, which I found thought-provoking:
"Freedom does not mean the absence of constraints or moral absolutes. Suppose a skydiver at 10,000 feet announces to the rest of the group, “I’m not using a parachute this time. I want freedom!” The fact is that a skydiver is constrained by a greater law—the law of gravity. But when the skydiver chooses the “constraint” of the parachute, he is free to enjoy the exhilaration. God’s moral laws act the same way: they restrain, but they are absolutely necessary to enjoy the exhilaration of real freedom."
The person in the example above can pursue their "freedom" all they want, but it will lead to their death. Likewise, I will argue that we are constrained by God's Torah-Law, which is to our benefit. Reckless pursuit of "freedom" absent honoring the constraints that God has given will lead to our "death", for the wages of sin are death. In fact, this message is entirely consistent with Scripture -- that true freedom is found in following God's Torah-Law: "I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts" (Psalm 119:45, NIV). I find it a great travesty that many Christians have twisted this by concluding that true "freedom" is from God's Torah-Law instead of walking in accordance with it.
