Thanks for joining us today as we continue our Friday series examining Catholic apologist, John Martignoni’s book, “A Blue Collar Answer to Protestantism: Catholic Questions Protestants Can’t Answer” (2023). This week, Martignoni continues his 30-part “Questions Protestants Can’t Answer” section with Question #6: Was the Prodigal Son Saved before He Left His Father’s House?
Questions Protestants Can’t Answer #6: Was the Prodigal Son Saved before He Left His Father’s House?
Martignoni attempts to use the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11-32, as a proof-text to refute the Protestant doctrine of eternal security, which Martignoni disparagingly refers to as the doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved.”
Martignoni’s Argument
Martignoni’s argument proceeds as follows:
A. Protestants teach the “dogma of Once Saved, Always Saved, which is the belief that once a person is saved – once he has said the Sinner’s Prayer or accepted Jesus Christ into his heart as his personal Lord and Savior – then he cannot lose his salvation. He cannot become unsaved. His ticket for the train to Heaven has been punched, and there is nothing that can derail that train. Once he is saved, he is always saved.”
B. Jesus’ Parable of the Prodigal Son refers to the progression of the younger son, from 1) “being alive” (saved), to 2) “dead to the father” (unsaved), to 3) “alive again” (saved).
C. The Parable of the Prodigal Son disproves the doctrine of eternal security. Writes Martignoni, “The Parable of the Prodigal Son…highlights the fact that we can lose our inheritance, eternal life, by sinning against the Father. We can go from being alive in Christ to being dead in our sins. Once Saved, Always Saved? I don’t think so.”
My Rebuttal
In his attempt to prove his Questions Protestants Can’t Answer #6, Martignoni flagrantly commits the cardinal sin of Scriptural misinterpretation by removing the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11-32, from its context. Luke 15:1-2 records that the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling because Jesus “receives sinners and eats with them.” The Pharisees assumed sonship with God because of their Abrahamic ancestry and their self-righteous, proud-hearted, scrupulous observation of the Mosaic Law, with zero humbleness and repentance before God regarding their own sinfulness and need of salvation. Elsewhere, in John 8:39, the Pharisees sought to justify themselves according to that way of thinking, saying, “Abraham is our father.”
So, back to Luke 15. Jesus first addresses the self-righteous Pharisees with the Parable of the Lost Sheep (vv. 3-7) followed by the Parable of the Lost Coin (vv. 8-10). The message of both parables is the same: Jesus is seeking after the lost. This brings to mind Luke 5:32, “I did not come to call the [self-proclaimed] righteous [who see no need to repent], but sinners to repentance [to change their old way of thinking, to turn from sin and to seek God and His righteousness]” (AMP). The Pharisees criticized Jesus for associating with ostracized public sinners, but it was the Pharisees who clung to their Abrahamic “prerogative” and their religious self-righteousness and would not repent and trust in Christ as their Savior through faith alone.
Jesus then tells the Parable of the Prodigal Son to the Pharisees, which directly addresses their proud Abrahamicity and self-righteousness paradigm. The father in the parable certainly represents God the Father. The younger son represents those Jews despised by the Pharisees who were likewise descendants of Abraham, but were living lives of very public sin (Roman-sponsored tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.). The younger son repented and his father forgave him, just as all those who repent and accept Jesus Christ as Savior through faith alone, both Jews and Gentiles, become right with God.
But what about the older son, who is featured prominently at the end of the parable? It’s astonishing, but Martignoni doesn’t even mention him in his arguments! Remember, Jesus is addressing the Pharisees. The older son represents the Pharisaical sons of Abraham who based their standing with God upon their ancestral pedigree and their self-righteous “good works” and merit. The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus was getting at with this parable. He was informing them that it was the despised, ostracized brother Jews who were the ones humbling themselves and being saved. Christ was pleading with the Pharisees to turn from their proud self-righteousness and humble themselves before God. Instead, they would plot against the Savior and help deliver Him to the Romans for execution. The Parable of the Prodigal Son doesn’t stand alone. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14 has several parallel themes.
Any interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son that, like Martignoni’s, doesn’t take into account that Jesus was thereby admonishing the Pharisees through the older son character for their self-righteousness and hard-heartedness has missed the boat entirely.
⚠️ There’s an enormous irony here, folks. Don’t miss this. Martignoni blindly uses Luke 15 in his arguments against the Gospel of grace, yet Martignoni and his fellow Catholics are similar to the Pharisees cited in the chapter in their religious self-righteousness and belief that they can merit their way into Heaven. They also mirror the Pharisees in their hatred of sinners who have repented, accepted Christ through faith alone, and forsaken works-religiosity.
So with the above we have Martignoni using a proof-text which has absolutely nothing to do with his argument against eternal security. I’ve used most of this rebuttal to address Martignoni’s abysmal interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son. What of his criticism of eternal security? The unregenerated person cannot conceive of salvation that is not merited and salvation that cannot be lost. There are many Scripture verses that declare that genuine salvation in Christ cannot be lost.
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. – John 10:28-29.
See also here.
Martignoni is deliberately deceiving his readers by not acknowledging the many Biblical passages which teach eternal security of the genuine believer and contradict Roman Catholicism’s merited-lost-merited-lost-merited-lost revolving door salvation-by-merit theology.
Grace to You – The Tale of Two Sons
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/GTY104/the-tale-of-two-sons
Got Questions: Eternal security – is it biblical?
https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-security.html
Martignoni boasted that Protestants can’t answer his Question #6. Well, the question was invalid because it was based on Martignoni’s woeful misinterpretation of Parable of the Prodigal Son.
Next week: Question #7: Are You an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture?
excatholic4christ 