count-your-change: “That doesn’t make it right but it does mean it is an area left to my own conscience, which I shall answer for, good or ill.”
EXACTLY! Now let’s say you were adamant that insulin use is evil. If you told a diabetic Christian it’s a sin to use insulin and scripture doesn’t back you up, then you are placing an unnecessary burden on them. Isn’t that what the Pharisees did? It’s what I call legalese Christianity.
I think you summed it up very well in your last post. If scripture doesn’t provide a clear answer, then you are free to do as the Holy Spirit leads. If you’re led to do something (or vice versa) and scripture is silent on the matter, BY ALL MEANS, follow God’s direction. That’s between you and Him. On the other hand, don’t plant these non-scriptural requirements as stumbling blocks for others.
Agreed?
The apostle Paul made the statement that while a thing may be lawful it may not be advantageous and that further we shouldn’t use our freedom to act (or not act) to the full if it proved to be a stumbling block to others in matters left to individual conscience.
Should you skip your insulin because it might offend me?
No, but you might choose to use it out my sight and we both can preserve our conscience unsullied.
Paul used the example of meat left over from sacrifices to idols at 1 Cor. chapter 8 but the principles he discussed are applicable to other situations too.
Again, prudence. Others are not required to follow their brother’s conscience when there is no clear Scriptural direction but neither are they free to ignore how their actions will impact it.