This is something that Clark does by way of habit. He says things that are manifestly not true. Here he suggests that the Westminster Divines did not believe that Scripture provided tons of insights for civil government. This is a huge dissimulation on Clark’s part. Consider if you will that,

The Westminster Divines also appealed to Scripture over and over again as to guide how the Magistrate is to implement Christian religion;

Westminster Larger Catechism Q. #191 – What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?

A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.”

And WLC

Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.

A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”

The magistrate’s place and calling requires him to remove all false worship and all monuments of idolatry.

And

Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”

The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”

Now, this may not be a “handbook to civil government” type stuff but it clearly demonstrates that Clark is wrong (again) on the idea that the Westminster confession doesn’t give precise instructions on the role of the Civil Magistrate.

If you value coming to truth on this subject then by all means avoid Dr. R. Scott Clark and R2K “theologians.”

‘Feucht is openly a theocrat who courts the attention of politicians and seeks to proselytize through his performances,’ Greaves said. ‘He has his opinions, and we have ours, but one thing the government can not do is preference his viewpoint over ours by giving him exclusive access to perform a concert on the Capitol grounds. That stage is every bit as much ours as it is his, so, in the name of pluralism and religious liberty, there are some state capitols that are likely soon to be hosting Satanic Planet shows.’

Comment left on R. Scott Clark blog

I unwind this comment because this is, in many respects, the essence of what the R2K ‘can’t shoot straight’ gang is teaching.

The key here is the statement ‘but one thing the government can not do is preference his (the Christian’s) viewpoint over ours, (the Satanists)’ as combined with the invoking of the classical liberal’s sacrosanct principle of ‘pluralism and religious liberty.’ The reason that this is key is because the minute the government begins to not preference religious viewpoints they (‘the government’) at that very minute have violated the sacrosanct principle of ‘pluralism and religious liberty’ because the government at that point is preferencing the religious viewpoint of somebody somewhere that insists that pluralism as a religious viewpoints is his religious viewpoint that should be preferred by the government and so forced on everyone else. Indeed when any government prefers the religious viewpoint that they as the government should not preference Christianity over pagan religions they have at that very moment preferred a religious viewpoint of somebody else’s over my religious viewpoint that Christianity should be preferred as the religious viewpoint over all other religious viewpoints.

Religion is an inescapable category and because of that pluralism is a myth.

Elsewhere Clark writes,