Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified

I only have 8,000 characters to address all your points so if I'm going to address what I see as most crucial. You said: "A Cappella translates to the English phrase, "Of the Chapel." That's right; A Cappella music is the type of music found to be coming from chapels or church buildings. Now, if this is true (and we just proved that it is), then logic demands the opposite must also be true. In other words, music with instruments is the type which is not found in places where the church meets. So, if there is an instrument present and in use, the people there are not part of the church: people who use instruments in their worship music are not in the church built and bought by Christ (Romans 16:16)." My rebuttal: The phrase "A Cappella" is not found within any context of the New Testament explicitly. Also, it isn't even found implicitly, and this is especially true in Ephesians 5:19 where the word "psalms" is used which based on many scholarly sources (see Thayer's revision to Grimm's Lexicon, or just Grimm's lexicon) that "psalms" means with the accompaniment of a stringed instrument/how it was used in Old Testament times (thus, exemplified by David a psalm can be accompanied or not accompanied by a stringed instrument and still be a psalm). My argument comes from a word you can actually find within the verse that I did not take out of context. Your argument relies on you first putting in "A Cappella" then basing your argument from there. A false premise will always conclude a false conclusion. ___ You said: "Again, this historical evidence is not religiously binding. However, in light of this evidence, we should be fearful of changing anything regarding this facet of worship. This should be an effective catalyst in provoking us to a deeper and complete study of this topic, regardless of how difficult such study may seem." My rebuttal: For the reader, binding means: the act of fastening, securing, uniting, or the like (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Anyways, if it's not binding then don't say we should be fearful, you just said the historical "evidence" (that we have been discussing) isn't binding, so it shouldn't make us fearful. ___ You said: Hebrews 13:15-16, "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." We are commanded to give the fruit of our lips as our praise. Giving the fruit of our fingers is strange fruit, and is thus condemned. God could leave it at this and it should be sufficient for us. However, God even gives us a glimpse as to why instruments are forbidden under the New Covenant. My rebuttal: Sure, I don't disagree that we should do what Hebrews 13:15-16 but you are quick to think this is referencing singing. I'm sorry that you can't see the argument I've made out of Ephesians 5:19. You are framing an argument... The verse says "let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." IF this means sing (IF!) it still doesn't forbid instruments. If you can't disprove my point from Ephesians 5:19 then by your logic the scriptures contradict themselves. ___ You said: "Colossians 3:16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." In this passage, we see that our singing is teaching. Teaching is speaking. We must all speak the same thing (1st Corinthians 1:10). We must all speak truth (Ephesians 4:15). Everyone must be able to understand the message of our singing (1st Corinthians 14:15). So, it is Biblically demonstrated that our singing must be in truth, and that a clear, distinct message must be given in our singing. Can mechanical instruments do this? Paul didn't think so." The frame you have used is unbelievable. First, the instrument can teach the tune/pitch of a song. Other than that, I agree with everything you say up to where you say: "Can mechanical instruments do this? Paul didn't think so." Where do you even find that the point of mechanical instruments are to do this? I agree Paul didn't think instruments could "speak truth" but that doesn't make them wrong. Where are you pulling that since we are told with our singing to do these things that since an instrument can't do the following things you mentioned (and there is no where that even concludes that they are meant to do that) that they are wrong? ___ You used as evidence: "1st Corinthians 13:1, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." Since I only think stringed instruments are allowed in New Testament worship, there is no contention. Also, this is a simile referencing back to not having charity... To say that this is Paul saying instruments are wrong is not valid. It would be like me saying when someone hits a wrong chord in a song that it sounds bad, therefore I have said striking chords altogether is WRONG. That's 100% illogical. ___ You said: "In other words, to use this word, a specific instrument must also be named. The only instrument authorized for us in worship is the human heart; we must pluck our heartstrings with our singing." It is by definition of "psalms." - Any stringed instrument. But someone may say, does not the American Standard Version's rendering, "singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord," necessarily mean that the heart is the instrumental means by which the melody is made? Not at all. Such an interpretation depends upon defining the word "with" as means. A look in any dictionary will reveal at least eight or ten definitions for the word "with." One of these is "accompanied by," and it seems clear that this is what is meant by the ASV in Eph. 5:19. Compare 1Cor. 14:15 where the construction is parallel in the original as well as in the English: "I will sing with the spirit..." Non-instrument advocates never contend that this verse refers to singing that is done "with the spirit" rather than the voice. All can see that it means, "I will sing with (accompanied by) the spirit..." If the singing in 1 Cor. 14:15 can be audible (which it obviously is) and still be with the spirit, then both the singing and the making melody in Eph. 5:19 can be literal and audible and still be with the heart! If not, why not? Thus, the meaning of the ASV is, "singing (vocal) and making melody (audible, vocal or instrumental) with (accompanied by) your heart to the Lord." This perfectly harmonizes with the versions already quoted. http://www.wordsfitlyspoken.org... ___ "Since ψαλλοντες is both plural (2nd person) and imperative, all are commanded to ψαλλοντες each time there is music. If ψαλλοντες applies to a piano, harp, or any other stringed, mechanical instrument, and it is already proven to apply to all worshipers, then all must play that specific instrument or be in violation of the imperative. " I agree, we must all sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. The definition of psalms though calls that when an instrument is used (within our liberty by definition and OT example of that definition) that it ACCOMPANIES, therefore not must everyone play to fulfill the definitions imperative to accompany. The imperative you use is linked back to "speaking" or the idea of singing the three types of songs we have in Ephesians 5:19, not the allowance of stringed instruments by the definition of psalms. The use of the instrument is optional based on the definition of psalms. ___ Thayer's translation of a Greek-Latin lexicon prepared by Prof. C. L. Wilibald Grimm. would totally disagree with what you are saying. He says (b/c there is no evidence) that psalms means the same as it did in OT usage.