Please read carefully, I plead with you, just about 3 minutes.

You have heard of the ‘duck test’ (If it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. most likely it is a duck). The emphasis is on “MOST LIKELY”, meaning it may not be a duck and the conclusion can be very wrong. Therefore, it is no way to find the truth and nothing but the truth.

And the “red car – fire engine” logic is the same. Simply this, if my car is red like a fire engine, has an engine like a fire engine, and has a siren like a fire engine, then, my car is a fire engine”, right? No!

Now the trinity doctrine draws a conclusion in the same way when it teaches that:

The Spirit is a separate being, equal to, and of the same nature as God and His Son. To arrive at this conclusion the trinity doctrine identifies the capabilities (what the Spirit does) and its emotions (what the Spirit feels). Then an abductive “red car – fire engine” logic is applied that if the Spirit does and feels these things, it has demonstrated the same capabilities and emotions as God, therefore is God. In other words, as with duck test or as with the red car -fire engine logic, a few parallels are drawn between an entity and what is know about another entity to support the conclusion that the two entities are the same.

Question: Is that logic correct?

Think about it this way. A son, is a separate being, equal to and of the same nature as the father to whom the son belongs. That is not reasoned from the capabilities or emotions of the son, but is self evident in the term son. You need no abductive (duck test or red car – fire engine) logic to know that the a son is always exactly like his father, naturally. You simply observe it, it is empirical. A son may have done nothing and expressed no emotion similar to a father, yet he is a separate being, equal to and of the same nature as the father, nevertheless and always.

So again question: Is this logic correct, that the capabilities and emotions accounted to the Spirit in the Bible and SOP, makes it (the Spirit) equal to, a separate being (in existence) from and of the same nature as God since the Spirit is referred to as “HIS Spirit”, “MY Spirit” and “OF God”, i.e. the Spirit belonging to him, and using it as He pleases?

If you were to be absolutely empirical about this, i.e. instead of applying logic to what the Spirit does and feels, rather as with the Son, consider what the Spirit is declared to be in relation to God, wouldn’t you be more accurate about the identity of the Spirit?

Judge for yourself.

Regards, TRF Ministries.