My Jot Pad of ideas for future development.
Does the Jesus's "Parable of the Prodigal Son" argue against predestination?
First look, the parable is an excellent expose on the power of the son's freewill and self reasoning, choosing to return to his father's estate. Perhaps the son represents the common sinner.
Second look, if the son had never been in the father's good grace and his estate, how would he know how or where or why to come back? Had he been born and raised in a pig pen he'd of known not what better life he had sinfully abandoned. Could this be about the common sinner then? It certainly isn't that all the other worldly strangers that would show up at the front gates to find an over joyed paternal figure running to accept them in for the first time. The son here is returning back to a place that he well knows and misses; he is a "prodigal"; he's left his first/natural estate; he has selfishly cashed in and squandered a future inheritance promised by the father to his own flesh and blood. How would any common sinner know what he is missing out on without having been born a son of the father and raised in proper estate to begin with?
How then could this argument possibly be made? We would have to put the first estate back into the Garden before the fall. The leaving prodigal would have to be Adam. But, then we would have to confuse the story by slipping each of Adam's believing children into the returning role.
Better, to leave the parable's meaning at prodigal; not freewill (nor predestination without further evidences). The story is not so much about the son's will as it is the father's will not having banished him forevermore and his pleasure receiving him back. Indeed, the son's return would simply have been another of many foolish errors had the father not willed to have him back.