Again, the present view of dispensationalism is usually different from the original view of dispensationalism. You believe that dispensationalism is simply categorizing time periods. The original dispensationalism went so far as to categorize "requirements for salvation" into time periods. These days much of modern "dispensationalism" has a bit of Calvinism thrown in. Dispensationalists don't usually have the balls to outright say God failed. They gloss it over by skirting the fact that dispensationalism requires God to have changed His methods to suit man's behaviors. This is partly why I began this thread with discussions of free-will salvation. If one is to say God had to change "requirements for salvation" by including man's "acceptance" of salvation (a perspective common in Baptist churchest), one has to be agreeing that God fails to be sovereign. Free-will salvation is common in modern-day churches... and I believe it was stated above that dispensationalism is common in modern-day churches... they coexist because they can. When one overworks God's actions by interpreting some of them differently than what they were meant to be seen as (lessons in obedience and God's omnipotence) one puts more of the balance of control in man's court.
You wrote: "Again, the present view of dispensationalism is usually different from the original view of dispensationalism. You believe that dispensationalism is simply categorizing time periods. The original dispensationalism went so far as to categorize "requirements for salvation" into time periods."
Response: The original view is over 100 years old, the "modern dispensationalism" that I'm talking about is at least 70 years old - hardly modern. There were some inconsistent statements made early on, but even Scofield made it clear at certain points that salvation was always by grace through faith, even though certain things he said seemed to suggests a different way of salvation under the Law. However, this has not been a view of the majority of dispensationalism for decades.
You wrote: "Dispensationalists don't usually have the balls to outright say God failed."
Response: Really? You're serious? Surely you don't think this is conducive to a respectful discussion of the issues. Beyond that, it is simply a seriously distorted caricature. No dispensationalist thinks God has failed in any way - that is outright heresy. So, please, if you're going to represent a position in order to respond to it, it might be better to avoid straw man argumentation. You have said a number of things characterizing dispensationalism that no dispensationalist believes at all.
Dispensationalists all believe that God is absolutely sovereign over all things. We might understand the mechanics of how this works out in somewhat different ways, for example in relation to salvation. Whereas Calvinism places regeneration prior to faith, this is actually a greater attack on God's sovereignty than the idea that God convicts and draws the sinner in the context of the preaching of the gospel and the sinner responds in faith.
As finite beings, for us to guarantee that we get our way, we have to be willing to force someone to do something. To say that God must regenerate first is to say that he must force the situation or he might not get his way. That is the paradox of 5pt Calvinism because in the attempt to defend God's sovereignty, it actually undermines it.
On the other hand, a non-5pt Calvinist (not Arminian, either) believes that God's sovereignty is so absolute, that he can perfectly accomplish his will (without ever failing), and do so while incorporating a free-will response to the gospel. We believe that God initiates salvation, he convicts the sinner, he draws the sinner to Christ, but there is a response of faith required. When the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas what he needed to do to be saved, they replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." If he could not genuinely respond in faith in order to be saved, this answer is nonsensical.