- About SI
This particular article certainly needed more consideration before publishing. The series is admirable by MacArthur but his apologetics are blind or selective at certain points with regard to the RCC's formulation and articulation of doctrine and particularly here in his treatment of the Lord's Supper. He chose O'Brien's articulation which, in his desription, probably was not the most fitting of how or what the RCC would consider a Doctor of the church would express themselves in describing the Eucharist.
His case, really, is against O'Brien since many of his superiors might not agree with this precise description, thus freeing the RCC from MacArthur's argument.
John MacArthur's argument, ultimately, is with one of his own theological fathers whose doctrines he follows on many points, namely Augustine which founded this doctrinal form and upon whom or which the RCC built it in further detail. In fact MacArthur and the RCC share Augustine (MacArthur both directly and like all Calvinists via John Calvin's doctrines and basic rationalistic theological method which substantially stemmed from the influence of Augustine's work in Calvin's theological development and expression). Maybe , in the end, John is debating himself. Heh.
You're nitpicking in your critique. His overall argument stands against their idea of communion. Good article.
To complain I am nitpicking without citing or explaining what or how is not helpful. Further, your second statement assumes I don't agree and looking at my post there is nothing there to warrant that. But as to nitpicking itself, in Galatians we are taught that a little leaven, leavens the whole.