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

It seems that my opponent thinks that I am a mind reader. Does he not, in his previous response, consistently refer to 'the law'? Not 'a law' or 'first law' or 'old law' but 'the law' - as if there is only one law that has ever existed. He can hardly blame me, therefore, for interpreting this to be his argument. True, he makes the vague claim that 'today we follow the New Testament' but such a vague phrase hardly implies the existence of a new law that has superseded the old one, which is what his argument now appears to be. So let's examine this argument. Does the Bible teach that the old law of the Old Testament is abolished, and that we are now called to follow a new law established by Christ. Most emphatically not. Jesus himself is emphatically clear on the matter, saying in Matthew 5:17-20 (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. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus' words could not be more unambiguous. He is not abolishing the law. Every single letter of the law stays until heaven and earth themselves disappear, and anyone who teaches otherwise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. This point is further reinforced by Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7:12, where he says: "Do to others what you want them to do you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets." Notice that this teaching - what is now called the 'golden rule' - is clearly described as a summary, and not a replacement, of Old Testament law. No I would certainly agree with my opponent that, according to the Bible, Jesus clearly changed the rules of the game, in that by dying for humankind, he opened up a path of forgiveness and grace. He removed the consequences that used to follow by disobeying God's law, but he did not change the law itself. The writer Paul makes this point very clearly in Romans 6:14-15, stating in verse 14 (NIV) that "sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace" but going on to balance that in verse 15 (NIV) with "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!" So Paul is very clear. Jesus' actions do not mean that people should sin. But what is sin? By definition, sin is breaking the law of God. But what is the law of God? The law that was given in the Old Testament, the law that Jesus explicitly endorses in Matthew, the law that was never replaced. And so Paul writes later on in Chapter 7 verse 4 that people are free from the law - not because the law now no longer exists (if that were the case, there would be nothing to be free from) but because we are free from the consequences that used to come from breaking the law. By opponent quotes this verse (and others) out of context to try to prove his twisted point that the law itself no longer exists, but a proper reading of the passage in context clearly renders this interpretation absurd. Given that the law itself remains today what it always was, we therefore have no choice but to conclude that the playing of musical instruments is acceptable to God now, as it always was. The practice was clearly permitted in the Old Testament, I have established that the law has not changed, and notice that my opponent is not able to provide one single verse from the New Testament to suggest that God now considers musical instruments unacceptable. No, the best he can do is produce isolated verses out of context to suggest (wrongly) that the law of God has changed, but he cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that God's specific stance on musical instruments has changed. Of course, if the Bible never mentioned musical instruments at all, then my opponent might be entitled to argue that no evidence exists to suggest that they are acceptable to him, and rely on the fact that the burden of proof is on me to prove the resolution. But given that the Bible does mention musical instruments and does clearly authorise them, as I pointed out in my first argument, I claim that the burden of proof is met, unless and until my opponent can produce reasonable evidence to suggest that musical instruments are unacceptable to God. So far, he has not done so.