Wishing that John MacArthur went AnCap

John MacArthur pushed back against the whole idea of shutting down the church services and pointing out the hypocrisy of the politicians in the state and across the country of letting BLM to protest and not social distant while churches can not do their church services. I agree with John MacArthur on that point of not using force against people. But he doesn't take it further. Wishing that he did take it further and go down that line of thinking and just go full-blown AnCap and have Grace Community Church and GTY as a separate country and succeed from the United States of America and just calling GCCistand and/or GTYistand. That means they are free to do whatever they want to do. But that is just a dream of mine...

Another issue that I want to point out is that from Phil Johnson. Yes, Phil Johnson, the attack dog of John MacArthur (in which I do enjoy watching Phil be an attack dog for JM! In a good way!). He pointed out that even the most dangerous governments are better than pure anarchy. I will push back on that, because North Koreans and Chinese people would LOVE anarchy. Especially North Koreans, they are living under suppression for decades and if total anarchy broke out, that means they can make a decent living and be able to make a better life for themselves and more importantly the Christian Church then can go into North Korea and spread the Gospel, much easier.

Now, in the USA context, sure, one can argue that without government there would be a net loss on our part. In certain cases yes, because the pesky Constitution is still in the way and a lot of city politicians across the nation would love to have dictatorial control over their cities and counties. But because the federal government is still enforcing the Constitution even though it been abandoned for decades and both the Federal, State and City governments still infringing on our human rights from our Creator. This is my primary difference between a lot of the Reformed folks and me. I take issue of government taking my stuff (ultimately my time, money is just a measurement of one's time), preventing me to do x, y or z. I apply the same logic to church services and doing drugs. If I can go and do church services than I would have to allow the drug user to do the drugs. If it is a voluntary action and a person's right isn't violated, then I would have to allow that to happen. It isn't OK to support church services then turn around and don't support a person's right to do drugs. Yes, it is their right to do drugs, not because of the drugs, but because it is a voluntary action. Sure, I would personally advise a person not to do drugs and would want to help them to stop taking drugs. But if it is voluntary, then I would have to let it happen. Letting x issue happen doesn't mean I support doing x issue.

Yes, I'm a fan of John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, and I do enjoy Phil Johnson being the attack dog for John MacArthur it just makes me laugh and enjoy the more weak liberal-minded individuals cry, but I do have to disagree with them two on this one.