If you do not keep the Ten Commandment Covenant, you are lawless and will not inherit eternal life.
Before you go swimming in the Lake of Fire, here is a superb article that maintains that the Ten Commandments were indeed "Nailed to the Cross." It begins on Page 6 of your browser:
What was “nailed to the cross”? The unity of the law
R.K. M C GREGOR WRIGHT
Therefore, when the nails pierced his sinless hands, the entire fulfilled Torah, the Law of God in its entirety, was “nailed to the cross” (Col 2:14-15).Some have tried to argue that when Paul said that “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us”was nailed to the cross, he meant only to include the hundreds
of civil and ceremonial laws in the Pentateuch and not the “moral law” of the Ten Commandments.But the word for “ordinances”is the usual Greek word (dogmata) for the authoritative proclamation of a ruler
declaring his laws to the people (Lk 2:1).The term “handwriting” (cheirographon) clearly refers to
God’s writing the Ten Commandments on the tablets with his own “finger”(Ex 31:18, 32:15-16, and Deut 9:10, etc.). Colossians 2 offers the clearest proof that the entire law is a unity.
After declaring that the Law was nailed to the cross,Paul continues to specify laws of the mosaic covenant which do not apply to the Christian, including the laws of “food and drink,”of “holy days,” of the “new moon,”and of “a Sabbath day.” In this clarification Paul includes not only the food laws commonly
recognized as part of the “ceremonial”laws, but by listing the feasts in the classic order of “yearly”(holy days),“monthly”(new moon), and “weekly”(a Sabbath day—NIV, NASB), he states that not only the Jewish festivals but also the weekly Sabbath were mere shadows of Christ (Col. 2:17). In other words, laws often designated “ceremonial”and also the weekly Sabbath (often designated “moral”because of its inclusion in the Ten Commandments) were equally nailed to the cross. Jesus also held that the Law was a unit. Not only did He hold that to break “the least of these commandments” is to break the lot (Mat 5:18-20, cf. also Jas 2:10), but He also held that all the mass of the commandments depends on the two “greatest”commandments, love of God and love of man (Matt. 22:40). None of this makes any sense unless the law is a moral unity. It makes no difference to this argument that some laws are more “civil”than “moral.”All the Law is included.
The only appropriate conclusion is that the whole of the Law in its detailed entirety was “nailed to the cross,”abolishedfor the Christian in this age, and replaced by a new “Covenant.”
.....
"They have no more power to sanctify now than they ever had, and therefore the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment is no more binding on the believing church of this age than are the rest of the mosaic laws. To return to dependence on them is the very apostasy that the letter to the Hebrews argues against (to say nothing of Galatians).We do not need the “weak and useless” laws of Moses (Heb 7:18), for we have the commandments of a risen Savior with whom we are right now spiritually united in his resurrection life."
Under the unity of the law as taught by Jesus, to eat a ham sandwich, or to wear wool with cotton is to violate the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are neither necessary nor are they sufficient under the New Covenant. I have exhaustively researched the writings of First and Second Century Christian Fathers - many of whom were disciples of the Apostles - and I have NEVER been able to find a single mention of the Ten Commandments. Nor are the Ten Commandments EVER mentioned in the New Testament. Yet those early Christians were incredibly brave, suffering the most unimaginable torture and savage deaths. Nothing in the Ten Commandments required behavior like that.
http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf