Belcher begins by defining each system, which he does quite fairly and succinctly. Then he offers a comparison of each on specific topics, such as God's people, God's plan of salvation, future state, etc.
All of this makes the article quite beneficial for learning about the two systems. The only negative I might sight is that he does not offer a critique either one. This is obviously not his purpose, so my frowning on it is somewhat obsolete.
Being that Ashland, along with the rest of America, is awash in Dispensationalism, I would offer these as aids in seeing the flaws of the system: Dispensationalism: A fundementally flawed system; Problems with Dispensationalism; Dispensationalism (longer, but more in depth--worth the read, especially if you are going to make a comment on this post defending dispensationalism!).
I believe that I should also provide some a couple of good links to articles on Covenant Theology too. I understand that most people in our area have never even heard of it as those who promote dispensationalism never even mention the fact that there is a competing theological viewpoint. Here are 12 lectures by Ligon Duncan on the topic. This one is quite a bit more brief, yet still good. I should note too the initial link above does a very good job of laying out the position.
Having mixed with my dispensational brothers quite a bit in the last five years (and having held to many of its tenets myself when I was younger), I would like to posit some of my own comments as a critique of the dispensational system.
First, I will reiterate the point that most dispensationalists in Ashland don't even know that they are a dispensationalist. For that matter, they probably do not even know the term dispensationalist (I know that I never did). It is just the framework that they have always been fed, explicitly or implicitly. Moreover, most are not full blooded dispensationalists. This is due to the fact that these folk (to their great credit!) take their Bible's seriously and read it, all the while appropriating its teachings to their hearts. As a result, they don't see a lot of the classic dispensational distinctions that are taught by the "pure bred dispi's." While they may have been taught that the Scriptures are divided up, they still read the OT and believe it applies to them personally and not to the future, "literal" Jewish kingdom exclusively.
My second remark has to do with those who profess to be Reformed and Dispensational. It is highly ironic that my dispensational brothers believe in the sovereignty of God and that He is working out His eternal plan. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they do. It shows that they are believing what the Scripture says about the decrees of God. However, Reformed theology is completely incompatible with dispensationalism because dispensationalism believes that there are two plans (one for Israel and one for the church).
Dispensationalism says that Christ came to earth to be the one who restored the Jewish kingdom, but the Jews rejected him and crucified him. So God had to resort to plan B. This gives birth to the notion of the church. The church age is considered a parenthetical age, which will eventually be taken out (i.e. raptured) so that God can get back to plan A.
Hopefully you see the irony: God is sovereign, but those Jews messed up His plan by crucifying His Son. If one really believes that God is sovereign, one cannot believe that He has two plans and that the church age is a parenthetical age. It should be obvious that Dispensationalism has a distinctly Arminian flavor.
Thirdly, the use (or neglect) of the OT by the dispensationalists is remarkable. Those who would be hard core dispensationalist pitch it all together. Since the OT has to do with the the kingdom of Israel, rather than with Christians in the Church age, it has absolutely no relevance to today. So, when I've sought to apply OT Scriptures to certain situations, I would hear things like, "But that's the Old Testament!" Interpretation: "Hello! That doesn't apply here in the Church age!"
For these die hard Dispi's I wonder why they don't just go ahead and tear the OT right out of their Bibles. Carrying around a pocket NT would be a lot easier...and consistent.
As I said though, most are not at that hard core dispi. level. Nevertheless, they do read the OT in light of the future Jewish kingdom (rather than seeing all the promises as Yes and Amen in Christ). I've heard people teaching this way. That is, I've heard them teaching certain passages and how they relate to the future kingdom. To this I say, why bother? Why teach it? It has no relevance to us, so how can it be profitable for training us in righteousness? Again, it would be more consistent to simply cut those pages out and spend our time in passages that are relevant to our context.
Another item that I would offer by way of critique is one that most grieves my heart. This is that none of these dispensationalist churches would accept my family and me as members. We would be banned from membership because we believe in the unity/continuity of Scripture and were all baptized as infants. The underlying assumption is, "You are not a real Christian."
The only way we could join is if we offend our conscience by disavowing our baptism and submitting to an immersion. Even if I could do that, I still would have a problem with joining. That's because my youngest daughter still would not be recognized as a child of God.
As a covenant theologian, I believe that my children, even before they profess faith in Christ, are God's children, and therefore members of his church. Being that they are holy (i.e. set apart to God [1 Cor. 7]), they have special rights and privileges that God grants to them. A dispensational church does not recognize children as having that privileged status or in any way part of God's church. Sure, they may be dedicated or presented (but certainly not baptized!), but they are just as much heathen as the pagan kid in Istanbul
This severance of children leads to a comment on the practice of excluding children from worship in the dispensational churches. Here I must admit that the dispensational churches are, unfortunately, consistent with their beliefs. If children are not children of God, then they don't belong in the worship service. I've talked about how children are excluded from services in other posts, but I have never linked it to directly to dispensationalism. Nevertheless, the correlation is clear.
This is, of course, why I'm not too worried about the overall longevity of Dispensationalism. I personally believe that it will eventually die out simply for the fact that it is not self reproducing. Dispi's children are not raised to worship and fear the Lord. So when they get older no one will be there to carry on the belief system. (Don't believe me? Then tell my why 85% of children who are raised in the church are turning away from the faith by the time they are freshman in college!)