The gospel is not an invitation for a hope, but a summons to sinners to repentance and faith through the proclamation of Christ crucified and risen.  

This sermon, preached at Ballarat West (Ebenezer) Presbyterian church by Rev Toby McIntosh, offers a narrative account of Luke 23:32–43, presenting the varied responses to Jesus on the cross with pastoral sensitivity and a Christ-centered focus. Yet, despite its narrative strengths, the sermon falls short of communicating the gospel’s transformative power because it omits critical doctrines concerning sin, the necessity of the new birth, and the precise nature of saving faith. 

A faithful gospel proclamation must confront hearers with the reality of sin and death, the necessity of spiritual regeneration, and the urgent call to trust in Christ’s atoning work.

If you doubt me on these matters, just remind yourself that it was John Calvin who wrote “ When a man has climbed up into the pulpit... it is [so] that God may speak to us by the mouth of a man”. No one needs to hear from the pulpit God repeating himself what he has already assigned to the written Word. We need to hear it relevance for us today.

Scripture teaches that all humanity is under sin’s dominion and spiritual death. Paul declares, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and Jesus insists, “Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The new birth, or regeneration, is not a mere moral improvement or human decision but a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit that imparts new spiritual life. This transformation is indispensable for entering into covenant fellowship with God and experiencing salvation. Calvin’s Institutes emphasize that regeneration unites the believer to Christ and incorporates them into the covenant community, while the Canons of Dort affirm that faith and repentance are gifts wrought by Christ’s efficacious death and the Spirit’s renewing power.

This sermon rightly highlights Jesus’ innocence and voluntary sacrifice, portraying the penitent thief’s faith as a model of grace and hope. It accurately situates the crucifixion within its historical and political context, noting Roman occupation and Pilate’s reluctant judgment. The narrative identifies four distinct responses to Jesus: the religious leaders’ rejection, the Roman soldiers’ mockery, the first criminal’s scorn, and the second criminal’s faith. This narrative fidelity aligns well with Luke’s passion account and provides an accessible framework for hearers to engage with the gospel story.

However, the sermon neglects to explain why the Jewish leaders hated Jesus, omitting the biblical reality that their opposition was rooted in sin and unbelief (John 8:44). The significance of this is that the religious leaders are the ones we would have hoped would welcome Jesus. Just as we would expect leaders in the church today would welcome him. Without an explanation for their behaviour, the gravity of personal sin and the necessity of repentance remain obscured. Furthermore, the sermon’s emphasis on Jesus’ love for people, while true, is presented without the complementary doctrine of penal substitution—that Christ endured the just wrath of God on behalf of sinners. This imbalance risks reducing the gospel to a sentimental message of love detached from divine justice and holiness. The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that Christ’s death was a satisfaction of God’s justice for sin, a truth essential to gospel proclamation (WCF 8).

Equally problematic is the sermon’s failure to communicate the urgency of the new birth. The gospel is not merely an invitation to a better life but a summons to be born again, to pass from death to life through union with Christ. The consequences of unbelief are eternal separation from God and condemnation (John 3:18; Romans 6:23). The sermon’s call to “turn to Jesus” lacks the necessary clarity about what faith entails—trusting in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection as the sole ground of forgiveness and eternal life. Without this, hearers may mistake intellectual assent or emotional response for saving faith, leading to false assurance. The Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession emphasize that saving faith is a gift of God, wrought by the Spirit, and involves a heartfelt trust in Christ’s person and work (Canons of Dort, Articles 7–9; WCF 14).

Theological precision also suffers in the sermon’s language. Phrases such as “Jesus helped create the world” risk subordinating Christ’s deity, contrary to the orthodox confession that the eternal Word is the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Similarly, suggesting that “we loose our relationship with God” implies human ability to maintain or sever fellowship apart from sovereign grace, contradicting the doctrine of total depravity and original sin as taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 6). Such language may inadvertently promote synergistic or semi-Pelagian notions, which the Reformed tradition firmly rejects.

The deficiencies in theological clarity that permeate the sermon are starkly revealed in the closing prayer, which fails to confront hearers with their total depravity and utter inability to choose life apart from sovereign grace. The prayer’s invitation to “pray with me now” dangerously implies that salvation can be initiated by human will or decision, neglecting the biblical and Reformed truth that regeneration is a sovereign, effectual work of the Holy Spirit alone (John 1:13; John 3:3–7). Such a prayer has more in common with Charles Finney's decisionistic revival campaigns than a Holy Spirit inspired conviction of sin. It does not sufficiently expose the sinner’s bondage to sin, nor the necessity of a radical new birth by the Spirit that alone enables faith and repentance. 

Moreover, by omitting the forensic foundation of justification—Christ’s perfect obedience and penal satisfaction received by faith alone—the prayer risks reducing the gospel to a mere emotional or moral decision, rather than a radical trust in the finished work of Christ. 

This leaves the hearer without a true sense of guilt before a holy God, without a clear understanding of their desperate need for Christ’s righteousness, and without the sober recognition that apart from God’s sovereign grace they remain dead in sin and hostile to God (Eph. 2:1–3). 

Such an approach undermines gospel urgency and the necessity of the new birth, offering a false hope that can neither stand nor save. To be faithful, both sermon and prayer must proclaim the gospel as the sovereign work of God alone, calling sinners to despair of self and to embrace Christ by Spirit-wrought faith, thereby glorifying God’s justice, mercy, and grace.

Pastorally, the sermon’s accessible style and narrative approach commendably engage hearers’ hearts and minds. The example of the penitent thief offers a relatable model of grace and hope. Yet, without clear teaching on sin, regeneration, justification, and sanctification, the gospel’s power to bring true repentance and faith is weakened. The Spirit’s sovereign work in effecting new birth and enabling perseverance must be emphasized to foster genuine conversion and spiritual growth. The experiential theological framework urges that preaching should bring hearers beneath the realities of God’s holiness, human guilt, divine judgment, and the necessity of spiritual rebirth through the Holy Spirit.

In conclusion, the “Ballarat West (Ebenezer)” sermon, while narratively faithful and pastorally sensitive, requires deeper theological grounding to fulfill its gospel mandate. It fails to teach the seriousness of sin, the necessity and urgency of the new birth, the forensic nature of Christ’s atonement, and the precise nature of saving faith. Such clarity will help ensure that hearers are confronted with the full biblical gospel, leading to genuine repentance, faith, and experiential new birth in Christ. Only then can the sermon truly serve as a faithful ministry of the Word, drawing sinners into covenant communion with the Triune God through Jesus Christ.