The use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is authorized by the Bible

With regard to the Matthew 5:17-20 passage, it seems to me that my opponent is twisting the text to make it say something that it simply doesn't say. I also note that he seems to be referencing a version of the Bible that uses a great deal of archaic language and phrasing - "thou hast obeyed', 'raise up to thee", "for verily I say unto you" - which does make the meaning harder to understand. I would therefore suggest that he quotes from a version with more modern phrasing (like the reputable NIV for instance) to aid the clarity of his argument. Now my opponent says: "Jesus, in Matt. 5:18 said God's word cannot be changed or altered till the earth and heavens pass unless God himself fulfills His word" But this is simply not correct. There is absolutely nothing in the passage to suggest that that God's word can be changed if God himself 'fulfills His word'. I quote the relevant part of the passage again from the NIV: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, 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." The text is crystal clear that the law remains unchanged until heaven and earth disappear, not until God 'fulfill's' anything. Now, the version of the Bible that my opponent quotes from is also perfectly clear on this point, but given that the language, as I have noted, is rather archaic, this fact is a little more difficult to see. The text is as follows: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled…" It's not too difficult to see how "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" is equivalent to "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". Now earth itself is clearly still here, so my opponent must accept that according to the Bible, the law stands unchanged. Now my opponent spends a great deal of time attempting to show that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament. I have already shown this argument to be completely irrelevant, but I would also say that I agree with him, that according to the Bible, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament. I agree that according to the Bible, Jesus is the fulfillment of many prophecies and writings in the Old Testament. What my opponent and I disagree on is the nature of that fulfillment. My opponent seems to be clinging to the idea that Jesus abolished the law - a bizarre notion that is clearly not supported by the text. I however say, as I explained in previous rounds, that Jesus fulfilled the law by removing the consequences that come from breaking the law - by taking those consequences himself when he died on the cross. To reinforce this point, can my opponent explain why, if Jesus did abolish the law as he claims, he then went on to die on the cross? If the law had been abolished, then the consequences and penalties for breaking the law would have been abolished also, meaning that there would have been no need for Jesus to die at all. You can't take the consequences for a law that doesn't exist! This point is highlighted clearly in John 3:36, which says: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." God's wrath remains, because that is the wrath that comes from breaking the law; a law that was never abolished, and will never be abolished until heaven and earth disappear. With that out of the way, there is very little left for me to refute. My opponent clearly has no real answer to Matthew 7:12 - can he explain why Jesus would be summing up a law that no longer exists and telling people to live that way? Explaining away Romans 6:14-15, my opponent is forced to resort to poetic language, "but are under that Gospel which has opened the fountain to wash away all sin and defilement" to mask the fact that he doesn't have an argument. What he says simply reinforces what I have been consistently saying. Jesus' actions removed the consequences for breaking the law, not the law itself. Had he done the latter, there would be no sin and defilement to wash away! The Hebrews passage read in context clearly reinforces this principle, and in Jeremiah 31:33 we find "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." How my opponent can use this passage to argue that the law no longer exists I'm not quite sure - that passage alone makes it clear that the law is not going away, but that God will, as the passage puts it, write it on people's hearts. As for my opponent's final point, he seems to have missed an important distinction between being allowed to do something and being commanded to do something. The Bible clearly allows us to worship God with musical instruments, but it does not require us to. We can worship God with or without them. Similarly, Psalm 141.2 allows us to use incense, but we do not have to - and indeed, Catholic Churches still do use incense in their services. As for Psalm 66 13:15, given that the purpose of sacrifice was to atone for sins, and Jesus has already done that, it would be silly to continue doing it, and I see nothing in Psalm 69 to support the killing of false prophets. So once again, we see that there is absolutely no basis to my opponent's argument that the law has changed, and once again I notice that he is unable to produce any passage from the Bible to actually suggest that God's attitude towards musical instruments has changed.