I didn't read through the entire thread, but here's my take. I hope I'm not repeating anything.

Dispensationalism strikes me as the kind of theology that reads the Old Testament and says "Wow, God's plan didn't really work out there, it's a good thing He sent Christ."

They just don't see the whole picture, and they see the different covenants as a renewed effort on the part of God to try and save people from Hell.

With that in mind, I would say that a consistent Dispensationalist would dismiss the moral commands prior to the giving of the Law as abolished when the Law was given, and then the Law abolished as Christ came.

This is where the Reformed and the Dispensationalists differ so much. We view Scripture as continuous and the commands given to Adam as being binding on us today, as well as the commands given in the Decalogue. The Dispensationalist sees different plans that God worked out to save people, that ended up failing because the people didn't want to follow God.

And again, we are brought back to our basic presuppositions. We see no failure in God's plans because God is Sovereign and all who are called come. They see failure in God's plan because man has the free will to reject God, and God is a "gentleman".

Damnable heresey.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)