The Bible teaches: mechanical instruments of music are approved by God in the New Testament church

Let us get right into the matter. Ahija’s argument, appealing at first, is not logically sound. In fact, the whole idea of disallowing musical instruments in the church is actually the precise thing Christ spoke against in His ministry. I will now explain why.By the way, I do understand the proposition and acknowledge that I accidentally left out “New Testament” in that sentence. I insist that my arguments have not been contrary to the resolution.“ ‘the New Testament does not specifically say whether it is approved or not’ This has been my objection all alone! My opponent has hit the nail on the head! The New Testament church does not show "approval" for the use of mechanical instruments!” Stop there. I worded that statement very carefully; the New Testament does not specifically say whether it is approved or not. This does not mean we cannot look at the New Testament and other verses and logically conclude that God would approve instruments in the church.“And when we do not have the approval from God to perform an act of worship, any worship that we arbitrarily perform is man's invention.” This is a bad argument, as this is not written anywhere in the Bible. This whole concept of “will-worship” is not a Biblical concept as far as I know. I’ve never heard of it honestly. My opponent takes Matthew 15:1 out of context, even though it seems to be supporting Con’s position. Here Jesus shows how the Pharisees have their own rules and command others to obey them even though they are not found in the Bible. However, no one is commanding anyone to play instruments. I would ask my opponent, is it a law in the Bible that Christians must sing?Really, this passage speaks more to the opposite case, condemning instruments in the church without the authority to do so. In addition, there is no passage to be found that condemns instruments in the church, and we could argue according to Con's logic that instruments should not be condemned.Will worshipAgain, I’ve never heard of this concept, and the only example presented is not actually talking about will worship. My opponent takes Colossians 2:22-23 out of context as well. Paul is not talking of worship but rather religious laws and commandments that are man-made, such as washing one’s hand before eating bread. Using instruments in worship is not a commandment. “Noted lexicographer J. H. Thayer described will-worship as ‘worship which one devises and prescribes for himself" (1958, 168).’ ” If this is the definition of “will-worship” then it is not what Con has been saying at all. Worshiping on behalf of one’s own fulfillment is certainly un-Christian. As I have already expressed, worship is for God alone. “Here is the issue: if one may, with divine approval, operate in the realm of silence, why can't he "devise and prescribe for himself" whatever pleases him? And yet, it is this very thing being censured." The Bible is silent on a multitude of specifics such as, can we brush our teeth? But where is the Bible silent on what is wrong? The Bible makes it clear what is sinful. We cannot "devise and prescribe for himself whatever pleases him" because that would clearly be not biblical. This argument is negated.Con’s argument:(1) Faith comes from hearing God's word.(2) The Bible says whatsoever is not of faith is sin.(3) Therefore, since instruments in the New Testament church are not found, it is sin.But to show the illogic of his conclusion, we could just as well say, “therefore, since brushing teeth is not found in God’s word, it is sin.” While the conclusion is wrong, the first two contentions are correct to a certain extent. The interesting thing is in the first contention that “faith comes from hearing God’s word.” Guess what? Musical instruments are found in God’s word, even if it is not in the New Testament church. When Romans was written (and still today) the Old Testament was considered God’s word and that is what is being spoken of in Romans 10:17. This argument proves my position more than it proves my opponent’s!Responding to my third argument, Con quotes Colossians 3:17: “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” My opponent goes on to say, “How can we use mechanical instruments in the name of Jesus? We cannot, because it is not by faith.” I would like my opponent to prove this is the case; he hasn’t so far. The Bible does not say we should wear a collared shirt for church. Can we wear a collared shirt for church in the name of Jesus? I think we obviously can and it would surprise me if Con didn’t wear a collared shirt to church on Sunday. Likewise, there is no reason whatsoever to believe we cannot use mechanical instruments by faith in the name of Jesus. My third argument still stands.“You will notice the screaming silence on mechanical instruments of music.” Simply because the New Testament church does not apparently use instruments in worship does not mean that it would be sinful to use instruments. That’s like saying someone walking into the early church with a dress shirt and tie would be sinning because there were no ties and dress shirts in the New Testament church.“This is why my opponent wants to go back to the Jewish Law and bring mechanical instruments into the New Testament worship service. He cannot find the examples in the New Testament church spoken of in the Bible.” I think this was obvious when starting the debate. While my opponent has made this clear, my opponent has not adequately explained why the Old Testament no longer has any legitimacy in the New Testament. Obviously we are not talking about Old Testament law, which is in fact no longer legitimate. Also, with regards to the Revelation passages, there is nothing to say that we cannot confirm something is acceptable in the early church by looking at a passage in another part of the New Testament. Thus my first two arguments still stand.