A Series of Unfortunate Arguments for R2K

Darryl G. Hart is continuing to attempt to defend R2K in the comment box at GreenBaggins. His arguments, however, are getting less and less Biblical - less and less Confessional - and less and less rational. Let me provide some examples:

DGH wrote (source):

Here’s the thing, how many citizens of the U.S. make killing a matter of conscience? ... unless a religion exists that practices human sacrifice, most people are fairly content with the restrictions of the second table.

There are several important rejoinders:
1) No, people are not "fairly content" with the restrictions of the second table. Fornication is rampant in the U.S. Some states are even willing not only to countenance homosexual fornication, but to give legal privileges to those who engage in it, on account of their engaging in it! And, of course, people being content with following the second table is no more significant than people being content to follow the first table.

2) The fact that there are few American Hindus that practice Sati, or few followers of Manson, or few Muslims jihadists, or few followers of the Aztec or religion, or few who follow after Molech is not relevant to the question of whether it is proper for the civil magistrate to prevent them from following the dictates of their very warped and seared consciences and killing people.

DGH wrote (source):

That doesn’t mean that looking to Scripture for cultural guidance is wrong. But it can look downright foolish if the search for guidance on ethics, aesthetics and politics only goes to the Bible and leaves aside Aristotle.

The only infallible rule for faith and life is the Scriptures. That doesn't mean we can't hope to glean insights from pagan philosophers like Aristotle, but where Aristotle and the Bible differ, we favor the Bible.

DGH wrote (source):

if the magistrate does not protect the freedoms of all men you may end up with St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. So it may be more prudent to protect both Roman Catholics and Protestants rather than letting each side slaughter the other depending on who’s in power.

a) This is really a non-argument. It's just two speculative claims placed back to back.

b) This non-argument presents a false dichotomy: there is a lot of middle ground between "slaughter each other" and R2k. The classical Reformed position that DGH rejects lies in that middle ground.

c) It's absurd to imagine that governmental rules of one regime can control those of another. In other words, the Hugenots could not have prevented their own massacre simply through imposing rules on the French nation. The massacre itself was in violation of the existing laws.

DGH wrote (same source):

I don’t think it’s possible for the magistrate to uphold the first table and protect the freedoms of Roman Catholics, Mormons, Reformed Protestants, and Muslims. If you know a way to do that, I’m all eyes.

So what? Some "freedoms" (like the freedom to blaspheme the Lord or the freedom to work on the Lord's day) might not be protected. That's the nature of having laws. Laws restrict liberty.

The question is: which restrictions on freedom/liberty are just and right? The way to answer that question authoritatively is by turning to the Scriptures. You can turn to Aristotle (or Sun Tzu or Machiavelli, whoever you want) but you have to recognize that those other sources are fallible and sinful sources. They may have good things to say, but what they say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. When they disagree with Scripture, they are wrong.

-TurretinFan