The following quote is taken from John Martignoni’s latest newsletter where he attempts to unite Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son with the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation. The two have nothing in common so I thought I would provide a biblical and reasonable response.

“The son was alive, he was a member of his father’s household. He rejects the father – which is what asking for his inheritance while his father was still living means…that his father was dead to him – ; then he goes off and sins and becomes “dead” to his father, no longer a part of the family, of the household. Then, he repents and returns to his father and is alive “again.” Alive, dead, alive again. Saved, unsaved, saved again.” (John Martignoni)

It is true that the son was alive, dead and alive again, but what difference was there in his pre and post deadness? The son was alive in the sense that he was born into the father’s household. It is evident from the parable that the son did not consider his life to be satisfying. He longed for a “better’ life away from his father where he could live the way he wanted to. His “life” was enveloped in the grip of the death he desired.

When the son became destitute and humbly returned to his father, his father remarked that he was alive again. What Jesus meant by that is that the son was returned to a better moral state. His previous life was one of discontent, bitterness and pride; his new life was one of humility, respect and subjection. His previous life was not really life, but a waiting-to-die sort of existence.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation in no way relates to the parable.

The premise of the Catholic doctrine of salvation is that one can humbly come to Christ, become a child of God through repentance – Just like the son returned to his father – then with one mistake, be kicked out of God’s house until he or she repents. This process can repeat over and over again throughout a Catholic’s life and it is entirely unbiblical.

The parable was primarily meant for a Jewish audience. It is a parallel teaching to Paul’s parable of the olive tree (Rom. 11); only Paul relates the teaching to gentile believers. The son, like a branch of the cultivated olive tree, is of God’s household by birthright. But as Jesus taught in the parable of the vine and branches, the branches that abide by faith bear fruit, but the branches that bear no fruit are cut off. It is similar with the olive tree and its branches, many of the natural branches, the Jews, were cut off because of disbelief. Paul said of these branches that if they repent and believe they would be grafted back in.

There is absolutely no support for Rome’s teaching that one can be grafted in, cut off and then grafted in again. When one believes and is joined to God’s family they will either bear fruit or they won’t bear fruit. If they bear fruit God will prune them so they will bear more fruit, but if they fail to bear fruit they will be cut off.

The parable of the prodigal son is an illustration of was necessary for the first fruits of God’s household, the Jews, to receive the inheritance of the promises of God. An inheritance they squandered through disbelief and pride, but might receive again through faith and humility.