We agree with some slight differences. We need to remember that the law was given to a " peculiar people", a mixed multitude. Before this, there was no law written in stone. Abraham was justified through faith and not the law. When the law was given it did not fail , it was broken. Salvation does not come by righteousness, it comes by faith. One can follow the letter of the law and have no faith. This is what Jesus Christ of Nazareth pointed out over and over.
So as the law was a " schoolmaster" the Master Himself laid out the path to everlasting life, faith through love and not works through the law. Even Jesus Christ of Nazareth veered from the written law ( adulterous woman) to point out how love shows one's faith and that the law points to a hardend heart. Be blessed.
Yes, it seems we're not far apart on most of this, although some of it may simply be semantical differences or slight variations in how we describe the process. It is difficult but I'll try to point some of this out.
The fact the Law was not written in stone prior to the Law of Moses is of no consequence. God did not deem it necessary.
To say that Abraham was not justified by the Law, but only through faith, is fraught with difficulty because it involves a point of orthodoxy without much explanation. We know that in accord with Paul's theology we are not saved by the Law of Moses, which at any rate, most of us were not affected by, since we aren't Jewish. We are saved by faith in Christ.
But what does this mean? Does it mean that righteousness plays no role in our faith in Christ? Of course not! We are putting our faith in Christ and in his righteousness. So righteousness clearly plays a role in our Salvation, as we adopt his righteousness as our law, so to speak.
We are not "earning" our Salvation, but in choosing Christ we have to demonstrate that we are truly choosing him by putting into motion his righteousness in our lives. So Salvation is one thing, but proving it is another. Christ did the work of Salvation. We adopt it by faith and prove our sincerity by demonstrating his righteousness in our lives.
Clearly, we can do good deeds without fully embracing Christ as our exclusive source of righteousness. This is a "mixed righteousness," as such, sometimes producing Christ's righteousness and at other times producing an imitation of it. This is not Salvation. It is adopting some of Christ's righteousness, but not Christ himself, who is to be our Lord and God.
To say that the Law "failed" is a semantical difficulty. It failed, I believe, in the sense that Israel could not, ultimately, succeed as a nation under that contract by keeping their end of the bargain. But as a program leading to faith in Christ, it was not a failure, and led both to the Church of all nations, and ultimately will lead, I believe, to Israel's national salvation under Christ in the future.
When we talk about the Law being "broke," it is the same reality being put in different terms. The Law was never meant to bring Eternal Life, but only to keep Israel in relationship with God, using temporary symbols of redemption. Israel could live in God's good keeping as long as they complied with these temporary mitigating elements of the Law in good faith.
But inasmuch as the Law could never provide Eternal Life, it always displayed Israel's failure to obtain the same. As good as Israel could do under the Law it still showed human imperfection and disqualification from obtaining Eternal Life. As such, the Law always appeared "broken."
But as a system and as a program leading to final redemption the Law certainly did not "fail." Though we're all proven by the Law to be "sinners," redemption does succeed in coming into our lives by faith, among those who are willing. And Israel will ultimately be restored as a nation of God, along with the many other nations who are called to the same.
That's probably the best I can do right now.
