My wife was educated at The Master's College (now University) receiving her BA in Biblical Counseling. She's not quite a rapid animal about theology like I am. Since I'm being educated at Moody, I tend to not ever really hear about Covenant Theology in any real sense (being that I'm a languages major, I receive about as adoctrinal an education as you can). The other night she expressed confusion as to what she is realizing she believes, what I believe, and what stalwarts of the faith at Master's believed. These are godly men whom she respected and still does but is coming to disagree with. She wanted to be sure, so she printed out a chart of differences. She wasn't sure what some points meant, and I am too new in my reformed walk to articulate it well. Can y'all please take a look and clearly explain each point? Dispensationalism = D Covenant Theology = C D: Usually does not accept the idea of 'Analogy of Faith.' C: Almost always accepts the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith.' D: There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity. C: The eternal Covenant of Redemption was within the Trinity to effect election. D: There was no Covenant of Grace concerning Adam. C: God made a Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people, including Adam. D: The OT sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect. C: OT believers believed in the Gospel of Messiah as sin-bearer mainly by the sacrifices as types and prophecies. I think this last one was the most confusing for her. I honestly didn't know how to answer it. I think there is some retrospective nature to the NT. People could look back in light of the full reality of the revelation of Christ and see the dots all clearly connected. Heck, we as believers now have that benefit even more so since we have full canon, 2,000 years of tradition, confession, and creeds hashed out by brilliant minds. Anywho, I would like to hear the thoughts of much more season and brilliant minds than my own.