Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified

I dont know about Brad, but i think he's trying to lost me in his words. He is trying to prove ONLY that stringed instruments are the only ones allowed in worship and i say based on definition of pslams and on the greek wordBeing a present tense verb (but not perfect tense which would apply only to a one time action), Ψαλλοντες is valid each time one engages in the action of the predicate. The active voice ties this verb directly to a specific means of fulfilling the action; in this instance a specific, named instrument. The mood is an imperative (command), and requires a participle's conjugation (which in turn requires a case, tense, and gender). 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 mustpluck our heartstrings with our singing. But based from your statements you deny this and builds up false satements. Oh and Brad the BOP is in your side! And I only "psallo" in the argument because I thought that you would understand that psalms are to be spoken not played, unfortunately you did not. Very well let's move on to the debate. (1)Instruments(specifically stringed ones) are only authorized in singing psalms. Paul told Christians to sing "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" in worship. If instrumental music is justified by using the definition for psalms, then instruments can only be used when singing psalms. "Hymns and spiritual songs" do not have that inherent meaning, so where is the authority to use instruments in songs other than psalms? (2) Could not sing without mechanical instruments. If the only way to sing a psalm is with an instrument, then how did Jesus and the apostles recite psalms without instruments (Lk. 20:42; Rom. 3:9-18)? How could they have respected the inherent meaning of the word without using an instrument every time they either sang or referred to psalms? Or did they use a harp every time they quoted a psalm? The fact is, it is possible for a person to sing, recite or read psalms without instrumental accompaniment. The psalms may have been sung with instruments in the Old Testament, but Paul specified how they were to be used in New Testament worship, "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord…" (Eph. 5:19; see 2 also Col. 3:16). If the inherent meaning of "psalms" requires mechanical, instrumental accompaniment, there would be no other way to sing or read a psalm. (3) The context says to sing. The Greek word for psalms in Ephesians 5:19 is psalmos, which comes from the root word psallo ("to twitch, twang, or to move by touching"). The argument is that since the definition of psallo once carried the meaning to play on a stringed instrument, then we can use instruments today. But that is not the only meaning of the word. "In the N.T., ‘to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God'" (Thayer's). The inherent meaning is to twitch or twang something. YES, it was used to refer to musical instruments in the Old Testament, but how is it applied in the New? How did Paul tell Christians to psallo or to use psalmos? By "singing and making melody in your hearts." Today's meaning of psallo is "to sing; to chant" (Kyriakides) and "to chant, sing religious hymns" (Sophocles). And psalmos is "a set piece of music" (Strong's); "a sacred song" (Vine's). These definitions agree with the New Testament. Which instrument have Christians been told to use: the heart or the harp? In his last statement my opponent said: "I urge the reader of this debate to weigh the evidence and not be persuaded by sources to claim words changing in meaning without the source producing evidence such as proof texts (biblical and non-biblical) that the word did in fact change. Since I think it's only logical to assume my opposition believes that t 'psalm' changed in meaning then the burden of proof falls on him to produce evidence of his claim (see burden of proofhttp://www.nizkor.org......)" My opponent here is saying that i have the BOP and i have the responsibility. Well i already showed it yet you do not read it. I am very disappointed on this debate and on my opponent. He failed to read and understand my arguments and only stands in his false statements. My opponent says i have dodged his arguments when he is the one who does it. He boasts about his "logic and his ability to point out fallacies" but he doesn't acknowledges his own mistakes and fallacies and he himself is in abject error. He relies more on Thayer and Grimm I would answer this by agreeing that instrumental music is authorized by the dictionary. However, the instrument is different than many believe. The Scriptures plainly reveal that they we are to use our hearts as the instrument while we are "singing", not playing a mechanical instrument (Ephesians 5:19). Furthermore, even the dictionaries point to the type of music, rather than the type of instrument. The dictionaries are helpful even in this study. The introduction of mechanical instruments into the definitions make the study misleading if you do not compare God's words with man's. A dictionary is an aid to HELP you understand the meaning of words. However, we must allow God's word to teach us (II Timothy 3:15; cf. Luke 24:27), not a dictionary. Allowing a dictionary to determine truth is foolish.For example, the King James Dictionary says to Baptize is "to dip or dye a thing".If you were to run with that definition you would ignore the Scriptures, which show baptism is an immersion in water (Acts 8:35-38, Romans 6:3-6, and Colossians 2:12).You must allow God's word to define itself.