Is John MacArthur really wrong about religious freedom?

Notice the argument has not been reproduced entirely faithfully. “Opposing” religious freedom, in general, intellectually, is not the same as not supporting an earthly political freedom in a particular context where it is grossly abused (the United States). Theology is rarely a problem of bad logic, but false or biased starting points and definitions.
Modern ideas of political freedom elevate the individual to god-like status. So political freedom (even given the “religious” title) is not Christian freedom—which is given by God in faith and enjoyed in Christ’s forgiveness. Human freedom is good when exercised in a godly and Christian way, the author posits, which is impossible without the Spirit. Sinners will always misuse freedom—which is why government exists: to provide order for unbelievers, especially.
But is earthly freedom to worship false gods and sin “religiously” good? No, so a generic human right is not a divine right—it is not given by God. Can earthly freedom be used well? It can, so very few oppose it. In fact, by leading public services when it is has been deemed illegal, MacArthur’s church, has exercised a divine freedom (of the Word), even when no earthly freedom appears to exist. MacArthur is making a more subtle point than what this opinion grants. Christ’s kingdom is not of this earth, so fighting for earthly rights which don’t grant eternal life is not strictly Christian and is not commanded by God in Scripture. The whole idea of “rights” is a modern product. We have no rights as sinners before God, but we are given undeserved grace in Christ. —ed.