Name me one Jew (Christ notwithstanding) who was justified by the Law.
If the Church has inherited the covenants of Abraham, then we must keep the law as many, if not most, of the covenants were conditional upon keeping the law.
Why? None of the Jews kept the Law. They all failed miserably, every last one of them. Since none of Israel has kept the Law, I guess none of Abraham's descendants have much to look forward to when it comes to the covenant promises, huh?
Do I detect a bit of anti-Jewish or anti-Semetic leanings in his writing? IMO this is where replacement theology leads. It is not only unbiblical, it is, IMO, a highway to hell.
Here we go again. The AC-DC defense...
No one was "justified" by the law, but ONLY Israel was required to keep it. The Law applied to Israel and this Author says that the Church is Israel... the Only Israel... The Israel spoken of in the old testament and that the Jews were (apparently) NEVER "True" Israel.
If the Church is "true" Israel, then would not striving to keep the Law as God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament be evidence of election?
IOW the fact that you do not ever even TRY to keep the Sabbath should be clear and convincing evidence that you are not part of True Israel, as Israel was commanded to keep the Sabbath and as far as I can tell that Commandment is still there.
Additionally if the Church were "True Israel" then the Church would be held to the dietary laws and rules of circumsicion and all the other ritual requirements to which Israel was bound.
The author here does not appear to speak of a new covenant, but insists that Christians are under the "ONLY" covenant. If, in fact, there is not at least a second dispensation, if in fact there is nothing "NEW" and that the Church is merely Israel, then the Church would still be held to the requirements of the law and all the distinctives that set Israel apart from the world.
My two cents.