Much erroneous teaching has resulted from failure to heed simple rules that pertain to interpreting parables
As intimated above, much erroneous teaching has resulted from failure to heed those simple rules. Thus, certain theologians who are basically unsound on the Atonement have argued from the parable of the prodigal son that, since no sacrifice was needed to reconcile him to the Father or provide access to the bosom of His love, God pardons absolutely, out of pure compassion. But that is a manifest wresting of the parable, for it is not as a Father but as the righteous Governor that God requires a satisfaction to His justice. Equally so is it a serious misrepresentation of the grace of the Gospel if we reason from the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:23-35) that Divine grace is ever exercised unto men except through a propitiatory sacrifice, a reparation made to the broken Law, which God has accepted (Romans 3:24). Those parables were never intended to teach the ground of Divine forgiveness: it is wrong to force any parable to display a whole system of theology. Some have even drawn from Christ’s forbidding His disciples to pluck up the tares an argument against the local church’s exercising such a strict discipline as would issue in the disfellowship of heretical or disorderly members— refuted by His teaching in Revelation 2 and 3, where such laxity is severely rebuked.
Arthur W. Pink-Interpretation of the Scriptures