1. “…having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col. 2:14).
2. “…by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances” (Eph. 2:15).
3. “Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end…For if what was being brought to an end came with glory…” (2 Cor. 3:7, 11).
4. “…there is an annuling of the former commandment…” (Heb. 7:18, NKJV).

Do I understand you correctly, that you believe that the law was merely fulfilled, but not also cancelled? If so, most scholars, including some Covenant Theologians, believe it was also cancelled (bold added below)…

“…Paul can claim in Eph. 2:15 that Christ has abolished 'in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations [dogmasin]'…'Abolish' (katargeo)…mean…it has been 'rendered powerless,' this is, ceases to stand as an immediate authority for God's people. Somewhat parallel is Col. 2:14 where Paul speaks of Christ 'having canceled the written code [cheirographon], with its regulations…'” (Doug Moo, Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 367)
“…'canceled the written code, with it regulations…Col. 2:14. That Paul here refers to the Mosaic law is probable [cf. the word dogmata, used also in Eph. 2:14]…Christ's cross cancels the debt…” (Moo, p. 85)
“The whole Law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments” (Barcellos, Defense of the Decalogue, p. 6).
“…the Old Covenant and its law, as Old Covenant law, has been annulled by Christ's death” (Barcellos, p. 67).
“The New Testament clearly abrogates the whole Old Covenant, including the Decalogue, as it functioned within the Old Covenant…” (Barcellos, p. 68).
“How can the apostle declare that Christ abolished the law when Christ himself in the Sermon on the Mount specifically declared the opposite…” (Stott, Ephesians, p. 99)
“The debt was impossible to pay, but God dealt with it; he had blotted it out and cancelled the bond by nailing it to the cross” (Peter O'Brien, New Bible Commentary, p. 1271).
“The earlier commandments in regard to sacrifice were abrogated…” (New Dict. of Biblical Theology, p. 636)
“Through His death, Christ abolished OT ceremonial laws, feasts, and sacrifices…” (MacArthur Bible Comm., p. 1687)

The problem for me is the ambiguity of the word cancelled (since it can imply incompleteness).
What do you mean by “incompleteness?” Are you assuming that the words “fulfilled” and “cancelled” must be synonyms? I see them as 2 different truths about the law. The law's contractual authority to bind us to obedience was cancelled. But, since what the law teaches is true, it's truths are still being fulfilled prophetically/typologically/eschatologically.
However, it does explicitly teach that Christ fulfilled the law.
Notice when the law is completely fulfilled, not until the end of time: “Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Mt. 5:18; cf. Lk. 16:17). So, parts of the law were/are/will be fulfilled past, present, and future. Parts of the law…

1. Were fulfilled in the past by Christ's 1st coming (Mt. 1:22, 2:15, etc.).
2. Are being fulfilled presently by the advance of His kingdom. (Lk. 24:44-49; Acts 2:16-21, 15:15-18, and all the OT prophecies about the Gentiles worshipping the Lord)
3. Will be fulfilled in the future by His 2nd coming and the restoration. (Is. 65:17 – 66:24; Ezek. 40-48; Dan. 12; etc.)

So, the fulfillment of the law is a gradual process throughout church history, not a one-time event in ~30 A.D.
Therefore, I don't think that fulfillment can fully release us from obligation to obey Moses. Cancellation releases us from Moses. The law was cancelled in ~30 A.D. as a covenant/contract so that it's obligations are no longer binding. However, all that it teaches is still true, so that it is still being fulfilled prophetically/eschatologically today until heaven and earth pass away.
the Noahic Covenant applies to all of Noah

I apologize for the amount of time it’s taken me to reply to you. I haven’t had time available to give to the blog lately (apparently none of us have).

First, I think I should clarify that my criticisms are not of the title of the book per se. I wouldn’t knock points off a review simply for a poor title. However, I think the title does a good job summing up two significant points of the book that I disagree with, which is why I pointed to it in my criticism.

Second, I stand by my points. While I appreciate the arguments you’ve made here (which from what I can tell are the same as are in your book), I remain unconvinced of your conclusions for using the word “cancelled” and that it is applied to all Old Testament laws.

We do agree that all Old Covenant laws have been brought to an end in Christ and they no longer bear any authority over Christians. While I think your interpretation of Matt 5:17/Rom 3:31/Eph 2:15/1 Cor. 3:7 has some warrant, I’m not completely convinced. We should at least be able to agree that scripture does not explicitly teach your interpretation. However, it does explicitly teach that Christ fulfilled the law. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to me, as well as safer, to primarily refer to the law as fulfilled. As far as I know, there is no contention about whether or not Christ fulfilled the law. The problem for me is the ambiguity of the word cancelled (since it can imply incompleteness).

Gen 9:6 seems to clearly be a command against murder, in my opinion. I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that the Noahic Covenant applies to all of Noah’s descendents, and since everyone is under Noah’s genealogy, the terms of that covenant apply to both Jew and Gentile. God is therefore just to hold the “heathen” to Gen 9:6 as they are under that covenant like the rest of us.

Regarding chapter 13, I think most of your points are insufficient grounds for concluding that Genesis is part of the Old Covenant law that was fulfilled. The one point that would be sufficient is that “covenant produces canon.” I’m not convinced this is the case, because if it were so, God’s covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses would have produced multiple canons. However, I have yet to read Kline’s argument for this apart from your summary of it.

I think you make an interesting argument in chapter 16 regarding the foundation of the apostles and prophets for the church. However, I don’t see it results in all of the Old Testament laws being cancelled. As you argue, there is a law written on the conscience of man that transcends OC and NC laws. If your argument in chapter 16 applies to all OT laws, then I do not see why it would not also apply to the law written on the conscience of men.

In response to the list of “pre-Sinai” laws you cited:
I have no reason to doubt that Gen 9:1 still applies today.

Circumcision of the flesh clearly is not law for today (ex. Acts 15, 1 Cor 7, Gal 5)
I think it’s safe to infer that the Passover foreshadowed the Lord’s Supper
I haven’t considered the consecration of the firstborn- I’ll have to give that more thought
The Sabbath in Ex. 16 appears to be part of the OC.

I do appreciate you taking the time to interact here, Greg. We do agree about far more than we disagree, and though we arrive at our practice from some different interpretations, it seems to me that we end up at the same place for how Christians ought to live.