Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified (debate #2)

"Paul is prescribing how we are to worship God," - Okay care to let me in on what Paul was doing then??? When it comes to our song worship he is telling us how to do it. All of ch. 5 in Ephesians is explaining us how to live our life in various aspects, and verse 19 addresses the issue at hand... I mean seriously... Oh wait, he's telling us how to wash our hands! "we are told following that we MUST sing," - Paul tells us to sing, if we don't, then we wouldn't be following God's inspired word. "To only play and not sing is a form or worship not authorized by God" - Honestly it's getting old repeating my evidence and then you just pulling out my point and not addressing the evidence attached to my point... Refer to older posts... All refer to Ephesians 5:19. ___ You said: "The problem I have with your position is that the scriptures do NOT specifically teach that God is NOT to be worshiped with musical instruments. Psalm 150 specifically states that God IS to be worshipped with instruments. There is nothing in the New Testament that would indicate that God has rescinded this form of worship. Jesus fulfilled the sacrifice, the priesthood, access to the Holy of Holies, the Law, the Prophets and MANY other Old Testament types and shadows; but, there is nothing in the New Testament that would indicate that He fulfilled the need of Man to worship God!" You want to use my logic in your first sentence and say, since God didn't specifically say we couldn't then we can. But, using my logic if He specifically said to sing and also specifically said one type of song is psalms (which allow stringed instruments) then it excludes anything else. Ex. God says use unleavened bread for communion. This is specific, therefore excluding we use cheeseburgers. Your Psalm 150 argumentation is not even close to having any validity... Psalms 150 puts restrictions on certain instruments since we must sing (ex. trumpets would not allow us to sing). Just because Psalm 150 talks about instruments doesn't mean that Psalm 150 itself was accompanied by those instruments... In fact, we only have record of any of the Psalms that were accompanied by instruments being stringed ones (harp, and I think maybe a few with lyre which is basically a guitar). Concerning your Psalm 150 logic as evidence refer to my very first post within our debate where I address Psalm 150 in great detail. ___ You said: "In Luke 19:37, disciples worshipped by rejoicing and praising God with a loud voice-not with Psalms, hymns or spiritual songs. Does this mean their worship was unauthorized?" That doesn't even prove they were singing... Just rejoicing and praising God with a loud voice... There are other ways to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice other than sing... Even it they were singing though, they could have easily been doing one of the three types in Ephesians 5:19 and by definition any song to God is a spiritual song (especially when looking at the greek this affirms what I'm saying). You addressed: "he [Jesus] only limitations placed on worship in the New Testament are those given by Jesus and you also addressed psalm 150" The only limitations placed on worship in the New Testament are these given by Jesus? You clearly meant Jesus when He was on earth, especially by the verse you gave where it is Jesus talking while on earth... To refute that Jesus is the only one who placed limitations I will just say the book of Romans... Paul puts so many limitations on New Testament worship it's not even funny... Now you can say that Paul was inspired by God, but your point was that Jesus (while on earth) was the only person to put "limitations" on worship in the New Testament. John 4:23-24 encompasses only what is worshipping "in spirit and in truth" while still keeping in light what is in fact truth, under which dispensation (old and new covenant). So in other words, it was right for a Jew in OT time to have animal sacrifices but in the New Testament this would not be true because New Testament Christians have Christ. So to say as long as we (subjectively) deem something as being in spirit and in truth because we say whatever we do is for God then we aren't being honest with God's word, review 2Timothy 2:15. Matthew 7:21-23 talks about people on Judgment day taking your stance (logic) on deeming things right and wrong instead looking at verses in context (Ephesians 5:19). ___ I will not pose any questions that aren't rhetorical because I would like out or respect my opponent to do the same in his last post since I will not have a chance to respond. ___ Why I have one this debate: 1) I have kept Ephesians 5:19 in context. We are told to sing, therefore we must sing. If God says to do something (Paul's writings are inspired by God) it is a command whether there is a "Thus saith the Lord," or not. Psalms is one the types of songs in Ephesians 5:19 we are to sing and by definition, psalms allow stringed instrumental use as well as when we look at David's Psalms as examples in the Old Testament clearly they affirm God's acceptance of stringed instruments accompanying psalms. Also, my opponent has failed to show that if psalms means anything else how/where it has changed in meaning. Circumstantial evidence of the early church not using instruments is not proof because he my opponent cannot prove the word changed meaning, then it was in the early NT church's liberty to not instrument. I have even cited scholarly sources to back my view. While my opponent may site scholarly sources in his next post, if they say the word (psalms) has changed in meaning they must produce the evidence that it did in fact change, not just claim it has changed with no evidence. If they can't prove with history of proof texts that the word changed/evolve then I am inclined to believe "psalms" has not changed in meaning from Old Testament use to New Testament use. 2) My opponent takes an argument of silence but as I have proven the bible is not silent on this matter. Also, where the bible is specific it excludes... As I have said before, God says use unleavened bread for communion. This is specific, therefore excluding we use cheeseburgers. It doesn't get more logical and easy to understand than that... If that's not the case then I'll just do whatever I want in any aspect of my life and this debate is the last thing I should be spending my time doing. Likewise to the communion example, God has specifically said sing (while psalms allow stringed instruments) therefore using a trumpet would be excluded because we cannot sing if a trumpet is used (I can't inspect every instrument known to mankind, but this is the logic for deciding if an instrument is acceptable or not) - stringed and able to sing while playing it. 3) Using instruments music WITHOUT singing has NO authority explicitly or implicitly of being allowed as worship to God from a biblical perspective (actually forbidden by evidence I have shown) and if we are going to say it is authorized then I should be able to go sleep with all the women I want. I have no authority to do it, but is definitely forbidden by God's word. ___ Thanks for debating, I appreciate your time on this issue and enjoyed seeing your point of view.