Mechanical Instruments Are Not Authorized For Use in Christian Worship

Thanks, Pro.---REBUTTALS---AUTHORIY OF THE BIBLEPro states: "Con claims ... using of the Bible to argue the authority of the Bible is fallacious. ... [N]ot when it's being used to argue against the addition or subtraction of the authority being used, it's not fallacious."Pro's claim is that the Bible proves the Bible: "[T]he authority of the Bible comes from the Bible."This is clearly fallacious.Again, prefer my Morgan Freeman proof.---HISTORICAL USE OF MUSIC IN CHURCHPro states: "Con claims that I stated that churches from the first century "often" didn't use musical instruments in worship. .... I actually said[:] ... "The first century church did not use mechanical musical instruments. .... Con ... twist my words[.]"Pro considers adding "often" to be "twist[ing]" Pro's words. I'll let the voters decide.Pro states: "The denominations became denominations because they disagreed with ... practices[.] ... [O]ne can imply, if a denomination rejects ... musical instruments after separating ... the rejection ... was ... one ... they were in disagreement about."First, as I've said, it's possible that music was disagreed over, though Pro has not proven that this is necessarily true, making this a very weak point already. (Consider that they might have been socialist churches and donated everything to the poor, or simply have been poor and unable to afford instruments.)Second, as I've said, Pro fails to prove that these churches are correct. It's entirely possible to create a new subset of a religion anad interpret your religion's holy book entirely wrongly. This is especially important when considering Contention One, which points out that the Bible supports music in worship, suggesting taht these denominations ---SINGING IN THE BIBLEPro states: "[Con states that I f]ail to demonstrate that the early churches solely praised God through voices[.]" .... I've given you every verse that ... SOLELY included singing!"First off, simply because the Bible says something doesn't mean the people actually did it.Second off, again, see Contention One. The Old Testament is holy, Biblical Scripture and referrences using music to praise God, meaning that Pro's verses simply ignored any instruments present.---SPECIFICITY OF GOD'S COMMANDBible.ca points out that many things aren't approved or disapproved of by God, simply because they are not mentioned in the Bible. Because Pro argues that musical instruments are disapproved of, and yet no evidence of this exists, we cannot assume so.---CHRISTIANS SHOULD ONLY CARE ABOUT THE NEW TESTAMENTPro states: "[T]he church didn't began until the book of Acts, which is in the New Testament. Like I said in my first argument, the most careful, meticulous investigation of the New Testament will not produce a single word in favor of this practice."First, this is incorrect, as gotquestions.org states [7]: "Ephesians 5:19 declares, "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord." The phrase "making melody" comes from the Greek word "psallontes" which means "to rub or touch," "to twitch or twang." It was commonly used in Greek to refer to playing a stringed musical instrument." Pro contests this verse, arguing that twanging occurs in the heart. This is ridiculous and is pure exegesis (where does the text mention "in the heart"?), which cannot be allowed.Second, this is irrelevant. As pointed out earlier, the Old Testament is just as valid as the New. To only use the New is to avoid more than half of Christian holy text.Pro states: "There aren't any Christians in the Old Testament[!]"Again, irrelevant. Christians obey the Old Testament also.Pro states that: "[T]he debate isn't titled, "Mechanical Instruments Are Not Authorized For Use in The Bible". It's actually titled, "Mechanical Instruments Are Not Authorized For Use in CHRISTIAN WORSHIP". Once again, none of the verses you've submitted pertain to the New Testament church!! So you still haven't proven that the Bible is pro-Church-music when it comes to Christian worship.Again, Pro fails to consider the fact that Christians must obey the words of the Old and New Testament. Christian worship therefore includes the Old Testament use of instruments.Pro states: "Just because God didn't forbid it in His word doesn't mean it's ok."Yes. However, as I have proven, God exhorted the use of music to praise Him, so it's definitionally OK for Christians.Pro states: "In the OT, God authorized the use of musical instruments as praise in worship. In the NT, God Authorized singing as praise in worship. God never authorized the use of musical instruments in the NT."Again, this is irrelevant. Not only does the New Testament state that the Old Testament is a valid part of God's word that must be obeyed, but God DID authorize the use of musical instruments in the New Testament.---QUESTIONS"Where in the inspired record of the New Testament church is there found a single reference authorizing the use of mechanical musical instruments in worship?"Apparently I failed to answer this question. Considering that Pro used this question as a rhetorical device ("Where can you find it? NOWHERE!"), I couldn't be reasonably expected to answer the question, so this should not be held against me.Furthermore, Ephesians clearly supports musical instruments.Furthermore, the NT supports the OT, which supports musical instruments."Are there any Christians in the OT? If so, who and where?"No... ? This isn't relevant."Does Jesus have a church in the OT?"No... ? This isn't relevant.---CONTENTION ONE: THE BIBLE USES MUSIC TO PRAISE GODConsidering that both the New and Old Testaments support the use of music to praise God, that the New Testament supports the Old Testament, which supports the use of music to praise God, and that there are no restrictions on music in worship whatsoever, it's clear the Bible gives an AOK to music in worship.This is sufficient reason to negate.---CONTENTION TWO: I'M GOD, AND I AUTHORIZE MUSIC IN CHURCH Pro never responded to this argument. This argument, which proves that Pro is incorrect, must be thus accepted as true. This is terminal offense against Pro; thus, Con must win.---SUMMARYSpelling: No difference.Conduct: No difference.Arguments: Con. Con has won that the Bible supports music in church, and that Con is God and approves of music in church.Sources: Con. Pro has only cited the Bible; Con has cited 7 additional sources other than the Bible.---REFERENCES[7] http://www.gotquestions.org...;