The sermon preached by Rev Paul Huynh at the Bay Church Presbyterian Church, while rich in its exposition of Christ’s substitutionary death and the completeness of His finished work, reveals a pronounced man-centred orientation that ultimately sidelines the crucial biblical doctrines of God’s righteousness, the sinner’s guilty state, and the necessity of regeneration.
This imbalance significantly diminishes the urgency and gravity of the words of Jesus that unless a person be born again, they cannot enter the kingdom of God. Such gravity should characterize gospel preaching at Easter when the propitiatory work of Christ confirmed these very words of Jesus spoken to Nicodemus only a couple of years before the Crucifixion.
At the heart of the sermon is a robust affirmation that Jesus died in our place, bearing the punishment we deserve because of our rebellion against God (John 19:18; Isaiah 53:5–6). The preacher rightly highlights the Old Testament fulfillment in Christ’s crucifixion, the unbroken bones typifying the Passover lamb, and the pierced side as the fountain opened for cleansing from sin. These are strengths that commend the gospel’s historicity and the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. The repeated emphasis that “it is finished” (John 19:30) underscores the completeness of redemption and the impossibility of adding to Christ’s work. This focus rightly rejects any notion that human effort can supplement or perfect the gospel.
However, despite these strengths, the sermon’s theological architecture is noticeably man-centred. The preacher’s definition of sin as “living as if God does not exist” and “finding your deepest joy in created things instead of the Creator” (cf. Romans 1:18–25) is an experiential description that, while pastorally accessible, softens the biblical reality of sin as a heinous rebellion deserving of God’s wrath (Romans 3:23; Ephesians 2:3). The sermon does not explicitly confront the hearer with the forensic reality of standing guilty and condemned before a holy God, nor does it vividly portray the righteous judgment from which Christ saves. The sermon leaves the “when” and “how” of personal rebellion largely implicit and generalized rather than explicitly articulated or applied to the individual’s conscience. The individual sinner’s desperate plight, the weight of divine wrath, and the terror of eternal condemnation, the “dock” where the guilty stand awaiting fulfillment of judgment, are largely absent. This omission weakens the sermon’s capacity to awaken the conscience and instil the necessary fear of the Lord that leads to repentance (Proverbs 1:7; Hebrews 10:31).
Moreover, the sermon’s closing invitation to “turn back to God” and “take hold of Jesus” presupposes a prior relationship or a capacity to respond that is not consistent with the biblical teaching on total depravity and regeneration. Scripture teaches that all are born dead in sin, unable to turn to God apart from the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:1–5; John 6:44). The call to “turn back” is fitting for covenant members who have wandered, if the preacher was seeking to build upon the Isa 53 reference made earlier, but is theologically problematic when addressed to unregenerate seekers which this prayer was addressed to. The whole invitation was problematic without clarifying first that this turning is itself a gift of grace (Philippians 2:13; WCF 10.1). The closing invitation went beyond the Reformed faith expected in a Presbyterian church when the preacher declared that grace is a resistible human power rather than the irresistible grace of God. It is the effectual grace of a sovereign God alone that enables faith and repentance (Romans 9:16). This semi-Pelagian tone of the invitation and closing prayer undermines the Reformed understanding of salvation as entirely of grace from beginning to end.
Lack of clarity in the doctrines presented was also disturbing. The typological use of the Passover lamb in Exodus 12, while broadly consistent with Reformed typology, is presented in a way that blurred important distinctions. The blood of the Passover lamb was a sign of God’s judgment passing over the Israelite homes, protecting them from the angel of death (Exodus 12:12–13), but it was not itself a sin offering in the Mosaic sacrificial system. Christ’s sacrifice, however, is the true propitiation that satisfies God’s justice and expiates sin (Hebrews 9:11–14). The sermon’s statement that Christ’s blood “was smeared on the cross so that the judgment of God could pass over us” attempts to capture the typological fulfillment of the Passover lamb but requires theological refinement. There needed to a carefully nuanced explanation in order to avoid equating the Passover ordinance directly with the atoning sacrifice. Christ’s blood was not literally “smeared on the cross” in the same way nor is the atonement best described as causing God’s judgment to “pass over” sinners. Rather, Christ’s blood was shed on the cross as a propitiation, meaning it satisfied and bore the full wrath and righteous judgment of God against sin (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2). The judgment of God does not “pass over” sinners because of Christ’s blood; rather, it falls fully upon Christ in their place. This is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and satisfaction. This distinction is vital to maintain the biblical and confessional clarity about Christ’s unique and sufficient work. The focus of the sermon upon substitutionary atonement was conducted without reference to the doctrines of imputation.
The sermon’s focus on the present benefits of Christ’s work—peace, forgiveness, and assurance—is pastorally encouraging but lacks the necessary balance of law and gospel. The hearer is invited to lay guilt at the cross and receive peace, yet there is little to no sober exposition of the sinner’s condemned state that demands such a radical intervention. Without this, the gospel is reduced to a message of present comfort and moral improvement rather than the proclamation of justification by faith alone through Christ’s righteousness imputed to the believer (Romans 5:1; WCF 11.2). The absence of a clear call to be born again, to experience the new birth wrought by the Spirit, leaves the sermon deficient in addressing the root problem of human sinfulness and the means by which one truly enters into the benefits of salvation (John 3:3–8).
Finally on these particular points, the sermon lacks the urgency that should accompany gospel preaching to the guilty and condemned. In many ways, this sermon serves to be representative of the preaching that I have encountered in the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. Speaking generally and allowing for exceptions, sermons are safe and inoffensive. However, the biblical preacher has failed in his duty if he does not bring the hearer to the brink of judgment, to the realization that without Christ they stand under wrath and face the certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation from God (Hebrews 10:26–31). This urgency is the necessary soil in which the gospel seed falls and bears fruit. The Bay Church Presbyterian Good Friday sermon’s tone is gentle and inviting but fails to convey the terror of the sinner’s plight or the immediacy of the call to repentance and faith. This diminishes the power of the gospel to awaken and convert.
The title of this essay labelled this particular sermon a Man-Centred sermon. Most of the sermons analysed as part of “The New Birth in Exile” series are worthy of the same label. This particular sermon gives an opportunity to discuss further some of the elements missing in the sermons preached on Good Friday.
While this sermon commendably highlights Christ’s substitutionary death and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, it notably lacks a clear and thorough exposition of the vindication of God’s righteousness through the crucifixion. The sermon emphasizes Jesus taking our guilt and suffering in our place, but it does not sufficiently address the judicial aspect of the atonement—how God’s holy justice is satisfied by Christ bearing the penalty for the sins of Adam’s race. The cross is presented primarily as an act of love and rescue, which is true, but the sermon misses the essential covenantal reality that God’s righteous judgment against sin was executed fully on Good Friday. This is not merely a tragic event or a display of divine sympathy; it is the moment when God’s justice and wrath against sin were poured out on the elect Substitute, thereby upholding the honour of His law and holiness. Without this, the seriousness of sin and the terror of divine judgment remain underdeveloped, and the gospel’s power to awaken the conscience and drive sinners to repentance is diminished. The sermon’s focus on the benefits of peace and forgiveness, while pastorally encouraging, does not sufficiently root those blessings in the forensic reality of justification—God declaring the elect righteous because Christ has endured the full judgment they deserved.
Furthermore, although the sermon does mention God’s eternal plan and the sending of Jesus “before the beginning of time”, which gestures toward election, it does not develop the doctrine of election or its implications for the elect in relation to Good Friday and the lives lived today. The absence of a clear teaching on election is a significant omission given the covenantal framework that undergirds Reformed theology and the mention of election in the sermon. From God’s perspective, the events of Good Friday are not only the execution of justice but also the fulfillment of His eternal covenant promises to redeem a people for Himself. The elect are those for whom Christ’s death was efficacious, the ones whose sins were imputed to Him and whose righteousness is imputed in return. This covenantal dimension should shape the preacher’s presentation by underscoring that Good Friday is the decisive moment in history when God’s justice and mercy meet in the cross, securing salvation for the elect alone according to His sovereign grace (Romans 8:29–30; Ephesians 1:4–7). Without this, the sermon effectively portrays the atonement as a general offer rather than a definite, effectual accomplishment of redemption for God’s chosen people. Including this doctrine would have heighten the urgency for hearers to recognize their standing before a holy God who justly condemns sin but graciously justifies sinners in Christ.
Why are these elements essentially missing in this sermon and others in The New Birth in Exile series? The answer lies in the offensive nature of election to human pride. As Paul argues in Galatians 5:11, the offense of the cross is that it confronts human self-righteousness and the desire to merit salvation. This sermon, and others in this Series, tend to replace a person’s self-reliance upon the Law for salvation with a therapeutic message of “God loved me, therefore I am okay.” This shift removes the necessary fear of God and the terror of judgment, which are essential to driving sinners to Christ. Removing the fear of God, of Judgment, and of Hell, in favour of “awe” or mere admiration of God for loving even me diminishes the gospel’s call to repentance and the necessity of Christ’s atoning sacrifice as the satisfaction of divine justice. Without this, the gospel becomes a message of comfort without the weight of sin’s guilt or the glory of God’s righteous vindication at the cross.
Fulfillment of God’s eternal covenant promises to redeem a people for Himself:
Ephesians 1:3–4 “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy
and blameless before him in love.”
Romans 9:11–13 God’s sovereign election of Jacob over Esau before birth.
The elect as those for whom Christ’s death was efficacious, bearing their sins and imputing
His righteousness:
2 Corinthians 5:21 “He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the
righteousness of God in him.”
Romans 4:6–8 The blessedness of the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin.
Justification by Christ’s blood and imputed righteousness:
Romans 5:9–10 “Since we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved from
wrath through him.”
2 Corinthians 5:18–19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their
trespasses against them.
In conclusion of this essay, it is very difficult to imagine that hearers experienced the horror (fear?) of Jesus words to Nicodemus in John 3:3; “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” While this Good Friday sermon commendably exalts Christ’s substitutionary death and the completeness of His finished work, it is marred by a man-centred doctrinal framework that neglects the satisfaction of God’s righteousness and the forensic justification that flows from it. The dock has disappeared and the bench is banished. The sermon’s experiential focus on present benefits, its ambiguous call to “turn back,” and its lack of emphasis on regeneration and the sinner’s guilty state result in a message that lacks the biblical urgency and theological depth necessary for faithful gospel proclamation. For the gospel to be truly life-transforming, it must confront the hearer with the holiness and justice of God, the reality of sin and condemnation, and the sovereign grace that alone brings new birth and justification through faith in Christ.
