Biblical theology tells the story of God’s redemption throughout history, tracing themes that run from Genesis to Revelation. Most often, this is described in the overarching timeline of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation (or restoration). Leading children to read the Bible through a lens of Biblical Theology (or a redemptive-historical perspective) is important.
 
Biblical Theology can be a pretty scary term. It sounds a bit like another field of study reserved for the guys in the pulpit or the ones teaching at our seminary halls, but it’s much more than that. It’s important in the discipleship of our children.
What is Biblical Theology?
Reformed theologian Geerhardus Vos defines it this way: “Biblical Theology is that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.”(1)
But . . . what does that mean? Focus on that word process.
Biblical theology tells the story of God’s redemption throughout history, tracing themes that run from Genesis to Revelation. Most often, this is described in the overarching timeline of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation (or restoration).
Leading children to read the Bible through a lens of Biblical Theology (or a redemptive-historical perspective) is important. It’s primarily important because it’s the way God reveals himself in Scripture, but there are also some other reasons worth noting.
5 Reasons to Teach Kids Biblical Theology:

It gives them God-centered perspective.

The Bible isn’t me-centered; it’s Christ-centered. When we read the Bible, we need to know that it’s speaking firstly about God, his character, and his plan. For example, while the story of David may show children how to be brave or how to follow God, the bigger picture shows how God is faithful to preserve his people and how he offers himself as a perfect King.

It gives them a firm foundation.The Bible isn’t just a compilation of stories or laws; it’s a larger story of God at work. This truth helps them understand that God has been at work in the world, is at work in their lives, and will continue to work out his perfect plan. From that vantage point, the past has purpose and the future has hope.

Read More
Related Posts:

Those who acknowledge their sinfulness, and who desire to be washed and made clean ought to be encouraged to come to the Table. “The focus of this self-examination is participation,” Keddie says. “It is not designed to keep Christians away, but to impel them to fly to Jesus in the repentant, confiding spirit of a lively faith.”[9] It is those who recognize that they are unworthy in themselves who need the exhortation to participate in the Supper and in it to find grace that supplies all their wants.

One Sabbath day, late in his ministry, John Duncan was preparing to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. In Duncan’s experience, joy and sorrow were often mingled in his participation in the meal – sorrow for his sins, yet joy in the assurance of his forgiveness. As he prepared himself, he heard behind him a woman sobbing. This woman was a communicant member. She had every outward indication of a life of repentance and faith. Yet as the elements were passed to her, she wept, and her hands trembled, too timid to take the elements, too timid to appropriate to herself the gospel promises signified in the sacrament.[1]
This woman’s experience at the Table is not unique. Volumes of practical theology have been written dealing with apprehension at the Lord’s Supper. Although the meal is a means of grace instituted for the good of Christ’s people, many fear and abstain, or fearfully participate, losing the joy of the meal in their anxiety.
While the reasons for fear and anxiety at the Table are legion, I hope to explore briefly two common reasons for fear and suggest biblically faithful responses to these fears.
Reason for Fear at the Lord’s Supper #1: Lack of Assurance.
A lack of assurance may contribute to a fearful experience at the Lord’s Table. As the consequences of coming unworthily are so severe (1 Cor. 11:27-30), it should be little wonder that those who lack assurance of salvation find the sacrament not an occasion for joy and comfort, but an occasion for anxiety, doubt, and fear. Believers in this state often see assurance as an essential aspect of faith, and therefore as an essential aspect of their worthy partaking of the Supper.
Responding to a Lack of Assurance:
These believers mistake a benefit of salvation with salvation itself. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dort confirm the confusion of people in this state: “Assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith”[2] and “The Scripture moreover testifies that believers….do not always feel this assurance of faith and certainty of persevering.”[3] The consistent witness of the Reformed tradition has been that those who doubt their interest in Christ can and should still come to the Table. Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 172 confirms this:
Question: May one who doubteth of this being in Christ…come to the Lord’s Supper?
Answer: One who doubteth of his being in Christ…may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this Sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s Supper, that he may be further strengthened.
Read More

In this in-depth discussion, Lindsay, Boghossian and O’Fallon begin by reviewing the Southern Baptist Convention’s Resolution 9 and then compare and contrast the strategic use of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality in nearly every facet of our society.

In this first of three interviews conducted in New York City, Sovereign Nations Founder Michael O’Fallon and the co-founders of New Discourses, Dr. Peter Boghossian and Dr. James Lindsay, discuss the current tools of societal and institutional deconstruction being introduced throughout civilization under the banner of “Social Justice.” These, they discuss, are presented in a manner not unlike the legendary Trojan Horse.
Dr. Peter Boghossian and Dr. James Lindsay are best known for their work in exposing the impact of “Grievance Studies” in the secular university system. The Grievance Studies affair, also referred to as the “Sokal Squared” scandal (in reference to a similar 1996 hoax by Alan Sokal), was the fourteen-month investigative whistleblowing project of a team composed of these two authors, together with Helen Pluckrose. Its mission was to create bogus academic papers and submit them to academic journals in the areas of cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies. The authors’ intent was to expose problems in “grievance studies,” a term they apply to a particular approach to studying these academic topics that proceed from a radical political agenda using means adapted from postmodern cultural analysis. Their conclusion is that under that approach “a culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed,” one that “put social grievances ahead of objective truth.” [1]
The result of their inquiry has created a crisis of confidence around all academic disciplines that fall under the umbrella of cultural studies, particularly those within the “theoretical humanities.” This crisis arises because not only were the methods and ethics applied in their bogus papers intentionally insufficient, but also the methodology they used for them was consistent. It always began with a conclusion or approach that they believed would flatter the political biases of the reviewers and editors evaluating their submissions and then bent the existing literature to reach those conclusions. This is, in a word, sophistry, and it cannot be trusted.
Even worse, they were able to determine that the ultimate reason for their success was not a matter of luck or a failure of the peer review system, but instead of having learned to write consistently with what their reviewers consider exemplary scholarship in those fields. They have every reason to believe that the peer review system worked exactly as intended, and they credit their success to having gained legitimate expertise in the relevant fields of thought, mostly applied postmodern Critical Theory.
Read More