The parable of the Prodigal Son of Luke delivers some interesting theology. It (a) corrects the Calvinist concept of spiritual death to mean separation—not a corpse in a tomb, (b) shows how everyone is 100% responsible for their own choices, and (c) teaches a useful lesson on the concept that permission does not equal determinism.
Luke 15:11-13: “And He said, ‘A man had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.” So he divided his wealth between them. And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.’”
When the father of the prodigal son allowed or permitted his son to leave, does that mean the father caused or determined his son to leave? No, of course not, and that’s because permission is not the same as determinism.
Luke 15:31-32: “‘And he said to him, “Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.”’”
The “Prodigal Son” wisely chose to return home, but that alone didn’t necessarily save him because in that culture, the father likely had the right to have him stoned to death. It took the father’s grace to spare his life and restore him into the family. It’s the same with salvation. We confess our sins to God and ask Him for forgiveness, and it’s entirely God’s choice to grant forgiveness—through the Cross. Similarly with the thief on the Cross next to Jesus according to Luke 23:40-43, Jesus would have known that the man was sincere and chose to grant his request, which is certainly what Jesus desired. I once heard someone say to me, “Ok, I believe,” but it didn’t seem like he meant it, but was just trying to shut me up. God alone retains the choice whether to grant or deny salvation. It’s His choice. We simply come to Him as a beggar, and God is delighted to grant salvation according to His principles.
To further illustrate the point of grace, in terms that our decision to ask God for forgiveness doesn’t automatically merit being granted forgiveness, consider a scenario of a drunk driver who killed your entire family. Would they merit forgiveness simply because they asked? No. It takes grace to extend forgiveness, and we do so only on the principle that God has forgiven us. So, on that account, we might owe forgiveness, but God doesn’t owe forgiveness to anyone. It takes God’s choice to be gracious, through what Jesus did on the Cross, to choose to offer the means of forgiveness through the gospel. So, under non-Calvinism, man’s autonomous, libertarian free-will choice to ask God for forgiveness doesn’t lessen the absolute God-centeredness of His free and sole choice to be gracious when He otherwise didn’t have to be.
Upon returning home in humiliation and being warmly received by his father (who ran to him and embraced him and gave him a golden ring and killed the fatted calf for a celebration), imagine if the son had reclined to the corner of the party and bragged to his friends, “Well, you know, I did come home, after all. You know, I just want to brag about me coming home out of my pigsty. Look how great I am.” That’s silliness. It was totally and completely the choice of the father to run to him and embrace him. He didn’t owe his son that, simply on the basis of returning home. His father chose to be gracious and that alone is what saved the son, because in that culture, upon returning home, the son really only deserved to be stoned to death, because of what he did to his father. But he was received in grace because the father is gracious.463
Calvinist objection:
R.C. Sproul: “God must not only offer the medicine but God must put it on a spoon and place it by the dying man’s lips. Unless God does all that, the man will surely perish. But though God does 99 percent of what is necessary, the man is still left with 1 percent. He must open his mouth to receive the medicine. This is the necessary exercise of free will that makes the difference between heaven and hell. The man who opens his mouth to receive the gracious gift of the medicine will be saved. The man who keeps his lips tightly clenched will perish.”464
Our reply:
When Calvinists insist that in non-Calvinism, “man is sovereign” over salvation, or that man becomes the decisive cause of his own salvation, think about that in terms of the parable of the Prodigal Son. Although it was 100% the son’s choice to return home and apologize to his father, it was also 100% the father’s choice to receive him back, when he otherwise didn’t have to. The father was not compelled to take his son back or put the family ring back on his finger. Instead, the father could have had him stoned to death. So, while the son was 100% the decisive cause in his own choice to return home, the father was 100% the decisive cause of his own choice to accept him back and to restore him. In terms of salvation, we may be 100% the decisive cause in our choice to ask God for the forgiveness of our sins, it remains 100% God’s choice to set the terms of forgiveness to grant it to whoever asks Him. In non-Calvinism, it’s not a 50/50 or 99/1 ratio. Both God and man remain 100% responsible for their own choices.
Calvinist objection:
R.C. Sproul: “Dead men cannot make themselves come alive. Dead men cannot create spiritual life within themselves.”465
R.C. Sproul: “The Bible does not speak of mortally ill sinners. According to Paul they are dead. There is not an ounce of spiritual life left in them. If they are to be made alive, God must do more than offer them medicine. Dead men will not open their mouths to receive anything. Their jaws are locked in death. Rigor mortis has set in. They must be raised from the dead.”466
Our reply:
But a dead man can return home to his father and humbly confess his sins and get reconciled. (Luke 15:24) Calvinists often conflate spiritual death with physical death, in order to manufacture a pretext for the necessity of Irresistible Grace. The reality is that the unsaved do not have “rigor mortis.” Spiritual death is not rigor mortis. Instead, it is separation, which can be reconciled, just like in the case of the Prodigal Son.
__________________________________
463 Dr. Michael Brown with Leighton Flowers on Soteriology101, 43:04-43:52. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVuT2FkxE1w [Editor’s note: This link is dead, not in the Calvinist theological sense of it being unable to respond, but it responds by taking you to a page that says “This video isn’t available anymore.”]
464 Chosen By God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 115.
465 Ibid., 114.
466 Ibid., 115.
[This post has been excerpted with permission from Richard Coords, Calvinism Answered Verse by Verse and Subject by Subject, © 2024.]
