Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified (debate #2)

First and formost, to liken me to the Pharisees in the sense that I'm just giving my opinion and not what God's word actually says is starting down the line of character assisnation instead of addressing my evidence. My opponent said: "I am not denying the above statement. I want to also point out that nowhere in the New Testament do the scriptures explicitly or implicitly hint that God DOES NOT allow Himself to be worshiped by the playing of instruments alone. In order to establish your premise that the ONLY instruments allowed in worship are stringed instruments, you have to give evidence that non-stringed instruments are NOT ALLOWED in worship." I will not repeat my same evidence as for why we are to only use string instruments, but I will address why non-stringed instruments (specifically that wouldn't allow the player to sing, ex. trumpet) are forbidden to be used alone in worship to God. It's not my opinion on what this means, it's what it explicitly says. Let me explain... You can't deny that Paul is prescribing how we are to worship God, so whether or not this verse explicitly says "command" or not, when we are told how to worship God in a certain way it is a command. Once again, the three types of songs we are to do in praise and worship to God are psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and we are told following that we MUST sing. To only play and not sing is a form of worship not authorized by God. My argument isn't that silence forbids but that where God is specific it forbids. So for example we are told to fellowship in Acts 2:42. There are various ways to fellowship, but if God has said when you fellowship you should only do it on Wednesdays that would exclude any other day of the week because it was specific. You said "If the New Testament is not silent about musical instruments, please copy and paste a New Testament verse that has either "instrument," "trumpet," "horn," "organ," or any other reference to musical instruments that forbids the use thereof in worship. That is the evidence that will prove your point. You have yet to give any such evidence." Don't try and frame an argument that tries to get past what suffices as evidence... Let's review what Psalms means in Ephesians 5:19 and why we don't need any of the words you wanted to find for you. This evidence comes from Bob Haddow who uses authorities such as Thayer (who was, incidentally, secretary of the American Standard Revision Committee)... First I introduce that outstanding Greek scholar, J. H. Thayer. The reader needs to know that the lexicon bearing his name is very largely Thayer's translation of a Greek-Latin lexicon prepared by Prof. C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Thayer says (in the preface) it was his purpose to let Grimm's work stand as is, and to introduce his own additions" . . . in such a form as should render them distinguishable at once from Professor Grimm's work" (p. vi). He further: says, "Brackets have been used to mark additions by the American editor" (p. xviii). Thayer was the American editor; thus we should not attribute to Thayer that which was merely Thayer's translation of Grimm, especially in a case where Thayer saw the need of making an addition to an entry treated by Grimm. Here is Thayer's addition, which obviously represents his position: "Syn. humnos, psalmos, ode: ode is the generic term; psalm. and humn. are specific, the former designating a song which took its general character from O. T. 'Psalms' (although not restricted to them, see I Cor. 14:15, 26), the latter a song of praise. 'While the leading idea of psalm is a musical accompaniment, and that of hymn praise to God, ode is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once psalmos, humnos, and ode' (Bp. Lightfoot on Col. 3:16). The words occur together in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19." (From page 637.) I now introduce the very latest and best, unabridged dictionary in its field: A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE (pub. 1957), translated and edited by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich from Bauer's Greek-German Lexicon of the New Testament, fourth edition, 1949-52. Of this lexicon, J. W. Roberts says, "This lexicon must now be accorded first rank in its field." (Firm Foundation, Dec. 24, 1957.) Hear this lexicon define psallo, the cognate verb of psalmos: "In our literature, in accordance with O. T. usage, sing (to the accompaniment of a harp), sing praise with dative of the one for whom the praise is intended to onomati sou psalo Rom. 15:9 (Ps. 18:49)." While the parenthetical phrase "(to the accompaniment of the harp)" was supplied by Arndt and Gingrich, that doesn't mean it is any less justified. At the end of their entries on psallo and psalmos, Arndt and Gingrich call attention to M-M: Moulton and Milligan's VOCABULARY OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. This great work has for quite some time been considered a needed supplement to "Thayer's Lexicon" since it contains the more recent conclusions from Koine Greek inscriptions and Egyptian papyri. Arndt and Gingrich describe Moulton and Milligan's VOCABULARY as "invaluable" (see preface of lexicon). Bear M-M define psalmos: " 'psalm' or `song', sung to a harp accompaniment." http://www.wordsfitlyspoken.org... What this evidence is saying is that the word psalms means exactly the same as it's Old Testament usage. To say it means just sing or just use instruments is to redefine the term, and to prove it has changed meaning means that the burden of proof falls on you to prove that it did, in fact change.