I believe the “dispensation of grace” occurs at Baptism… and that those who have not “professed Christ” may still follow the TRUTH of Christ, but outside of the grace offered in His church. I believe we need to recieve the grace of salvation through baptism, and participate in Christ’s work in us through faith working in love.
But I also believe in the mercy of God. Anyone who believes a piece of the truth, is also holding a piece of Christ, and that may still be saving. My goal is to share the fullness of the truth as it has been handed down to me…not to condemn others outside of that grace.
As for dispensationalism or covenant theology, I believe they both hold some truth for illuminating the scriptures… There is a great summary of this in the CA Library
Here is what it says:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902chap.asp
"*Israel and the Church
One of the disputes in Protestant circles is over the relationship between Israel and the Church and whether God still has a special purpose for the ethnic people of Israel in his plan of the ages. Two of the chief disputants are the Protestant schools of thought known as “dispensationalism” and “covenant theology.” The former is a relative newcomer on the Protestant scene and was started in the 1830s by an Englishman named John Nelson Darby. A distinctive characteristic of dispensationalism is its insistence that God’s plan of the ages focuses chiefly around the ethnic people of Israel.
With the close of the Church age, many dispensationalists have said they expect God to turn away from dealing with the Gentiles and turn again to dealing primarily with the Jews.This affects dispensationalism’s reading of the book of Revelation as well as much of the rest of biblical prophecy. Dispensationalists see Revelation as a blueprint of future events, chiefly concerning the Jewish people, leading up to a future, earthly reign of Christ known as the Millennium.
During the Millennium, they believe, Israel will be restored as a nation, will return to offering animal sacrifices (in commemoration of Christ’s death on the cross), and will be the most favored nation on earth, with Jesus physically ruling in its capitol. In dispensational thought, the Jews may also have a special status in the eternal order that follows the Millennium.
Covenant theology is much more in line with what traditional Protestant views have been. It tends to be amillennial, viewing the Millennium as the present reign of Christ in heaven and, through the Church, on earth. This is the historic Protestant view, in contrast to dispensationalism’s pre-millennial (future earthly reign of Christ) stance.
Covenant theology thus does not take Revelation as a checklist of future events but as a prophecy of events occurring at the beginning of or all through Church history. Consequently it does not see Revelation as a record of God’s future dealings with the Jewish people. When dealing with apparently unfulfilled prophecies that speak expressly of Israel—such as those in many of the Old Testament prophets—covenant theologians tend to apply them to the Church, arguing that the Church is the spiritual Israel. This “transfer” of prophecies from ethnic Israel to the Church does not go over well with dispensationalists.
If we may speak of the two systems in their unqualified forms, dispensationalism asserts that God still has future plans for the Jewish people and deduces that the Church is not spiritual Israel; covenant theology asserts that the Church is spiritual Israel and deduces that God has no future plans for the Jews different than his plans for any other people.
Both systems cite Scripture for the major premises of their arguments, and the verses they cite seem successful in showing these points. The problem is not with the Scripture passages cited by the two groups but with the conclusions they draw from them. It is the constraints of the two systems that keep their adherents from recognizing that the inferences they make do not follow.
