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

I would also like to say sorry for my long response. now onto the debate. My opponent said:"Now, my opponent starts by acknowledging that while playing instruments was authorised in the Old Testament, this tells us nothing about what God wants today. This is an interesting use of logic, especially given 1 Samuel 15:29, which says, "The Lord is the Eternal One of Israel. He does not lie or change his mind. He is not a human being, so he does change his mind. "If, according to the Bible, God does not change his mind, or lie, and if musical instruments were acceptable to him in the past, then they must still be acceptable to him now. "My response-First of all, I am unsure of the translation that he is using,but here it is in the KJV: "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent. " My opponent made a faulty argument in this passage. In the context of this passage, the first phrase that states thatJehovah will not lie or repent has to do with the specific events recorded in 1 Sam. 15 (the idea that God refused to change course of mind and action - repent - concerning the death of King Agag). The second phrase is the reason why. It is a general statement about the nature of God. Jehovah God is not a man. He is not bound by the finite nature, the limitations, the frailties of man. Therefore He doesn't have to repent. It isn't a requirement for God, something He ought to or must do. That is what the word should means. However, we know that God changes His mind all the time. In Numbers 14:12, Jehovah tells Moses, "I will smite them [the Israelites - ELJ] with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee[Moses - ELJ] a greater nationand mightier than they. "Yet Moses reasoned with God and God relented (14:20). If God never changes His mind, then prayer is futile as God will do what He will do and nothing we say or do will change that. If God does not change things, then the Hebrew writer was incorrect when he wrote in Heb. 7:11-12 - "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. "The idea that God does not, cannot change His mind is not supported in scripture. He does not have to, but that doesnot mean He didn't, doesn't, and won't. My opponent said: "My opponent's central argument seems to be as follows: 1. God's law initially authorised the use of musical instruments.2. The law was abolished as a result of Christ's death. (To use his exact words, 'to follow the law is to contradict Christ, who died to remove it. ')3. We have no reason therefore to believe that the use of instruments is authorised now. Now this argument is incredibly weak. For a start, I do not accept 2, and I might articulate why I believe this to be false in future rounds. But notice that I don't have to, since 3 does not follow from 1 and 2 anyway. If it is the case that musical instruments are not authorised, then it therefore follows that they are against God's law. This follows by definition of what it means for something to be authorised. But if there is no law - if it is abolished and we no longer need to follow it, as my opponent claims, then it cannot not be permissible for Christians not to worship God with musical instruments. In short, claiming that musical instruments are not authorised necessarily implies a law which is explicitly not authorising the instruments. Since my opponent thinks that no law now exists, we therefore cannot accept the possibility that musical instruments are not authorised. I therefore claim that we have solid grounds to believe that musical instruments are authorised by the Bible. I showed this to be the case in my first argument, and my opponent has so far failed to produce a convincing argument to counter it. " -First of all my opponent made a false claim that I think that no law exists. Did i say that? I did not say that! My opponent should be ashamed of himself making up words i did not say. Didn't I said that we are under the New testament? Meaning, we follow the new testament, the Law of Christ, which is a higher, spiritual-based law. But here is what I actually said in my first negative: "the Old Testament truly did authorize playing instruments as musical praise to God. But this tells us nothing about what God wants today. Today we(christians) follow the New Testament. " I know my my opponent knows that the law I am talking about is the Old Testament Law. He has twisted my arguments. Since my opponent's assertion was based on this. His argument crumbles. Secondly, according to him he does not need to prove premise 1 and 2 since it does not follow premise three. but nowhere do i see any explanation why is this. Lastly, I therefore conclude that musical instruments are not authorised in the Bible and that my opponent has not produced any convincing arguments that will defend the proposition nor defended his so-called claims clearly and biblically.