Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified

I NEVER said all psalms by definition MUST be done with instruments. I said the definition allows for accompaniment of stringed instruments. If you want to play my words go ahead, I don't really care if you want to distort what I'm saying. What I'm saying (so the reader doesn't get confused by my opponent's playing of my words) is I agree with Thayer's/Grimm's definition of psalmos (psalms). From Thayer's translation of a Greek-Latin lexicon prepared by Prof. C. L. Wilibald Grimm, and I quote:"Syn. humnos, psalmos, ode: ode is the generic term; psalm. and humn. are specific, the former designating a song which took its general character from O. T. 'Psalms' (although not restricted to them, see I Cor. 14:15, 26), the latter a song of praise. 'While the leading idea of psalm is a musical accompaniment, and that of hymn praise to God, ode is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once psalmos, humnos, and ode' (Bp. Lightfoot on Col. 3:16). The words occur together in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19. " (From page 637. )My opponent gives Thayer's definition of psallo (the verb form of psalmos) but doesn't give the noun's (psalmos/psalms) definition by the same individual, Thayer and Grimm (Thayer obviously agreed with Grimm's definition because the only places Thayer revised Grimm's definition were with the brackets in the quoted definition above). Why? Because if my opponent did he would see that psalms, by definition, "took its general character from O. T. 'Psalms'" , and logically speaking the OT psalms had some psalms that were accompanied by instruments and some that weren't, and as far as we know (and can only logically assume) all pleased God. But when only viewing Thayer's definition of psallo my opposition wants to claim the instrument is the heart. He is distorting evidences because he is not giving Thayer's full position on the matter. You said: "The instrument of choice is already specified by the Lord - the heart. The "heartstrings" are to be plucked. The graceful melody produced by this instrument of divine origin exceeds the appealing melody produced by any instrument of human origin. Since the instrument to be "plucked" has been specified, what authority do we have for changing it? "First, my opponet doesn't even know his own (fallicious) argument. My opponent has insisted the 'heart' is the deemed instrument to pluck, which I credit to my opponent that at least the word 'heart' can be found within the text of Ephesians 5:19 (which just cause I find a word doesn't credit my position of an argument if I take it out of it's intended use), BUT I ask my opponent to please give me book, chapter, and verse to where we are to pluck our "heartstrings. " I have addressed this issue in earlier posts and shown very logically why this isn't true but my opposition didn't address my contention so I'm not repeating myself. If my opposition uses his argument of the 'heart' being the instrument, I urge the reader of the debate to go to my previous rebuttal of this logic and read how it's illogical to say the 'heart' is the instrument ' in Eph. 5:19 but rather, singing is to be done heartily. Also, what is the heart? It's our intellect, our mind. Acording to Mark 7:21, which I will quote "For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, (ASV)" I would say I'm correct. So, I could say by his logic (he is making up terms, ie "heartstrings" which is not found in the bible) it would by a synonym of "heartstrings" to say I'm to pluck my "mindstrings" or my "intellectstrings. " The argument to pluck your heart/heartstrings is a Red Herring fallacy as well as a fallacy of composition (see fallacy of composition . http://www.nizkor.org...) I'll explain his logic in terms of it being a fallacy of composition:Hearts are instruments to be plucked for God. People have hearts, so people are to pluck their hearts as instruments for God. This is fallicious because hearts may be instruments to be plucked for God and people may have hearts but that doesn't limit them to their hearts as their only instrument to be plucked for God. But as I'm inclined to say again, in previous posts and as well as this post, I have proven the heart is not an instrument (in the sense my opponent wants to make it out to be) and is not to be plucked. My opponent goes on ranting about "psallo" changing meaning. I don't really care what any scholar claims without evidence. Let him produce evidence that the word did in fact change and I'll consider, just sources making claims that words changed doesn't prove anything. The reason Thayer's definition is best for psalms is because he let's it define itself by the Old Testament usage of the word. He didn't claim it went on to only mean sing with no instruments BECAUSE there is no evidence of this being true. Some would argue that the early New Testament Church didn't use instruments, therefore it must have changed in meaning. First, this logic is easily deemed a fallacy of Post Hoc (see here . http://www.nizkor.org...). A false premise leads to a false conclusion and without evidence my argument stands to disprove my opponent's logic. Secondly, my argument proposes the early church knew that psalms could be accompanied by stringed instruments or not, it was within their liberty (freedom or choice) to choose not to use them. The circumstantial evidence of the early churches non-use of instruments does not suffice as evidence to prove my opponent's stance. If psalms changed in meaning we should have other proof texts (not just biblical, but probably biblical as well) that prove it did change in meaning from it's Old Testament use, not just claim it changed. Claiming it changed without any evidence is we call begging the question (read up . http://www.nizkor.org...). This evidence would have to explictly say in some way that instruments were forbidden in terms of psalms! My opponent has been using fallicious arguments and has been illogical. He has dodged arguments I have proposed in opposition to him such as the 'instrument' in Ephesians 5:19 being the 'heart'. 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 proof . http://www.nizkor.org...) If I struck up a conversation to a complete stranger on the street and mentioned 'psalms', do you think they would think just singing, or would think oh yeah like David's psalms that were sometimes accompanied? Exactly, if people come to the latter conclusion it certainly has not changed meaning, unless my opponent wants to say psalms meant the OT usage, then when Ephesians 5:19 was written meant just sing, and once again changed meanig to mean with instruments. WOW. If that's true, all I'm going to say is why would God confuse us like that! ? He wouldn't. This last paragraph assumes the stranger has the knowledge of the character of the Old Testament psalms and doesn't buy into ancient words changing meaning without some kind of evidence that they did.1Corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.