# Did Jesus do miracles by His own power or by the power of the Holy Spirit?



## Pergamum (May 25, 2017)

Did Jesus do miracles as God?

Or as the God-Man did He do all miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit?

I believe Jesus did all His miracles through the power of the Spirit as a man and did not tap into His Divine nature. After all, as a man he did not know the day or the hour, etc. He did not become less than omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, but he voluntarily limited his use of these powers during His state of humiliation.

Is this right? I have recently been challenged on this and one person stated that Jesus did His miracles out of His own power as God.

When it says that Christ emptied Himself, this seems to mean:

(1) Jesus voluntarily divested Himself of certain rights as God the Son. (A)He restricted Himself to a human body with all its limitations. (B) He gave up His position when taking human flesh (the state of humiliation). (C) He veiled His glory from the people. (D) Finally, He exercised His relative attributes only by the will of God the Father through the power of the Spirit - never on His own initiative. --How does that sound?

MacArthur's study notes on Mark 13:32. 'When He became a man, He voluntarily restricted the the use of certain divine attributes. He did not manifest them unless directed by the Father."


John 12:49 says, "I have notspoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it." But how did Jesus know this, but through the Holy Spirit enabling Him to?

And John 5:30
I can do nothing by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

And how would the disciples know this, but through the Holy Spirit?
John 8:28
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.

John 14:10
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, carrying out His work.

And the verdict of why Jesus could do all this seems to be the following:
“For God does not give [Him] the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34).


Abraham Kuyper says it means that the Holy Spirit endowed Christ’s “human nature with the glorious gifts, powers, and faculties of which that nature is susceptible.” And in terms of John 3:34, “he lacked nothing, possessed all; not by virtue of His divine nature, which can not receive anything, being the eternal fulness itself, but by virtue of His human nature, which was endowed with such glorious gifts by the Holy Spirit” (The Work of the Holy Spirit, 1966:94-95)


----------



## Pergamum (May 25, 2017)

Anybody? Even if it is just a note that I am not a heretic on this.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2017)

John Calvin, Institutes, I. xiii. 13: "I admit that similar and equal miracles were performed by the prophets and apostles; but there is this very essential difference, that they dispensed the gifts of God as his ministers, whereas he exerted his own inherent might. Sometimes, indeed, he used prayer, that he might ascribe glory to the Father, but we see that for the most part his own proper power is displayed. And how should not he be the true author of miracles, who, of his own authority, commissions others to perform them? For the Evangelist relates that he gave power to the apostles to cast out devils, cure the lepers, raise the dead, &c. And they, by the mode in which they performed this ministry, showed plainly that their whole power was derived from Christ. 'In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,' says Peter (Acts 3:6), 'rise up and walk.' It is not surprising, then, that Christ appealed to his miracles in order to subdue the unbelief of the Jews, inasmuch as these were performed by his own energy, and therefore bore the most ample testimony to his divinity."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 25, 2017)

But didn't Jesus himself say, "But if I cast out devils *by the Spirit of God,* then the kingdom of God is come unto you..."


----------



## Pergamum (May 25, 2017)

Even the words Jesus spoke on earth seemed to be given by the Spirit, Isaiah 11:2,3 states, " And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and might ...... and shall make him of quick understanding. . . . "

And in Isaiah 42:1 states, "Behold My servant, whom I uphold, My chosen, in whom My soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the gentiles". Mathew tells us in Mathew 12:17,18 that this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> But didn't Jesus himself say, "But if I cast out devils *by the Spirit of God,* then the kingdom of God is come unto you..."



That is one side of it -- Christ working according to the human nature. Another side shows His divine nature; as in John 2:11, "manifested forth His glory;" John 10:30, "I and my Father are one." It is important to maintain the unio personalis. The One Person acts and does what is proper to each nature.


----------



## Pergamum (May 25, 2017)

John Owen seems to agree with me on page 217 here:

Stating: http://www.prayermeetings.org/files...ia_A_Discourse_Concerning_The_Holy_Spirit.pdf



> Fifthly, It was in an especial manner by the power of the Holy Spirit he wrought those great and miraculous works whereby his ministry was attested unto and confirmed. Hence it is said that God wrought miracles by him: <440222>Acts 2:22, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him;” for they are all immediate effects of divine power. So when he cast out devils with a word of command, he affirms that he did it by the “finger of God,” <421120>Luke 11:20, — that is, by the infinite divine power of God. But the power of God acted in an especial manner by the Holy Spirit, as is expressly declared in the other evangelist, <401228>Matthew 12:28; and, therefore, on the ascription of his mighty works unto Beelzebub, the prince of devils, he lets the Jews know that therein they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, whose works indeed they were, verses 31, 32. Hence these mighty works are called duna>meiv, “powers,” because of the power of the Spirit of God put forth for their working and effecting: see <410605>Mark 6:5, 9:39; <420436>Luke 4:36, 5:17, 6:19, 8:46, 9:1. And in the exercise of this power consisted the testimony given unto him by the Spirit that he was the Son of God; for this was necessary unto the conviction of the Jews, to whom he was sent, <431037>John 10:37, 38


----------



## Pergamum (May 25, 2017)

John Owen also seemed to believe (if I am reading him correctly) that the Spirit was the enabler and inspirer of all Christ's theological thought processes, inspiring them and revealing to Him things of God.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2017)

I doubt Owen would accept the either-or way in which you have stated the matter. He clearly taught that there are two sides to be considered.

Works 12:174-175: "But for the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said to do them 'by him,' because he appointed him to do them, as he designed him to his offices, and thereby gave testimony to the truth of the doctrine he preached from his bosom as also because he was 'with him,' not in respect of power and virtue, but as the Father in the Son, John x. 38; so he working these miracles by his own power and at his own will, even as his Father doth, chap. v. 21, and himself giving power and authority to others to work miracles by his strength and in his name, Matt x. 8, Mark xvi. 17, 18, Luke x 19, there is that eminent evidence of his deity in his working of miracles."

Ibid., p. 175: "This, I say, he does, John x. 37, 38, 'If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.' In the doing of these works, the Father was so with him as that he was in him, and he in the Father; not only ἐνεργητικῶς, but by that divine indwelling which oneness of nature gives to Father and Son."


----------



## Pergamum (May 25, 2017)

MW said:


> I doubt Owen would accept the either-or way in which you have stated the matter. He clearly taught that there are two sides to be considered.
> 
> Works 12:174-175: "But for the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said to do them 'by him,' because he appointed him to do them, as he designed him to his offices, and thereby gave testimony to the truth of the doctrine he preached from his bosom as also because he was 'with him,' not in respect of power and virtue, but as the Father in the Son, John x. 38; so he working these miracles by his own power and at his own will, even as his Father doth, chap. v. 21, and himself giving power and authority to others to work miracles by his strength and in his name, Matt x. 8, Mark xvi. 17, 18, Luke x 19, there is that eminent evidence of his deity in his working of miracles."
> 
> Ibid., p. 175: "This, I say, he does, John x. 37, 38, 'If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.' In the doing of these works, the Father was so with him as that he was in him, and he in the Father; not only ἐνεργητικῶς, but by that divine indwelling which oneness of nature gives to Father and Son."



Thanks for that quote.


----------



## Dachaser (May 25, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Did Jesus do miracles as God?
> 
> Or as the God-Man did He do all miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit?
> 
> ...


My understanding is that Jesus accepted the liimitations that would come from being now located in a flesh and blood human body, and having human sinless nature, so he veiled His glory while here. he seemed to indeed rely upon the Holy Spirit to do His miracles and to get his words to speak forth with?
He never ceased to be God while here, but did choose to restrict using his divine attributes?


----------



## Pergamum (May 25, 2017)

Beeke/Jones as they reflect on the Christology of Owen and Goodwin say: “He [Jesus] did not cheat by relying on his own divine nature while He acted as the Second Adam.”

Also, A Puritan Theology, p. 343, seems to defend this same view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (May 25, 2017)

Again, there are two sides to this. Owen has already been quoted. I can recall places where Goodwin spoke of the miracles being a proof of Christ's divinity. Showing that He acted as man does not exclude the fact that He acted as God at the same time. Again, the unio personalis must be considered. The Person did the miracles.

I can perceive what Dr. Beeke was driving at here, but I cannot agree with the way it is expressed. Reformed theologians have regularly taught the necessity of the Mediator to be God and man in one person. It is encapsulated in the Larger Catechism, answers 38-40.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2017)

Here are two clear examples from Goodwin's volume on Christ the Mediator.

Works, 5:109-110: "All the works and actions which, in that nature thus assumed, in this height of glory that becomes due to it, he will set himself about to work, *and to shew forth the glory of the Godhead of his Father*, *and of himself*; even these also, by reason of that worth which his personal perfections do contribute unto them, might haply be estimated sufficient to give satisfaction in point of honour, though no further debasement be laid upon our nature in him. As suppose that he would have done nothing therein but *work miracles*, utter his treasures of wisdom, shew forth his holiness and power, &c.; yet *these being from a person so infinitely glorious*, *have therefore an infinite worth in them all*, even as all his actions, now he is in heaven, have; for the person is infinite, and he it is that gives this acceptance and this lustre to them."

Works, 5:338: "All his extraordinary works, as *miracles* and the like, are not to be included. They rather transcend the predicaments of the ten commandments than are parts of the righteousness of the law. They *were proofs of his divinity*, and the signs and badges, rather than the duties, of his office."


----------



## Jack K (May 25, 2017)

The fact that the miracles reveal Jesus to be the Christ, and God, does not necessarily mean Jesus did the miracles in the power of his divine nature. There are many passages in the gospels that suggest Jesus, in his work as the Christ, was operating as the prophets before him did, discerning and following the will of God and then performing miracles in the Spirit's power. The passages suggesting a more direct use of his own divine power seem fewer and less explicit.

So Perg, I don't think you should feel like a heretic. I often notice that my students tend to be unimpressed by the life of Jesus, figuring that what he did was easy for him as God, and completely missing the fact that he was fully man and had tremendous, perfect faith. So I think it's helpful for a teacher to point out Jesus' pattern of dependence on the Spirit. But I stop short of making an absolute claim that Jesus did all his miracles only that way. That sort of statement feels to me like it may go too far, for the reasons regarding the person of Christ and the continued presence of his full deity that have been mentioned above.

That's how I currently teach, for what it's worth. But I think this is an excellent matter to ask about. I want to improve in my understanding of it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 26, 2017)

A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life" by Joel R. Beeke, Mark Jones:



> "Owen makes an important distinction concerning the revelation Christ delivered to the church. In the Old Testament, the Son revealed God’s will to the prophets in His divine person, sometimes mediated through angels, “but now, in the revelation of the gospel, taking his own humanity…he taught it immediately himself.”9 Owen notes that some have argued that Christ’s ability to reveal the will of God as a prophet comes from His unique privilege of being one person with two natures, and so being the eternal Logos enables Christ to reveal God’s will to the church. Owen rejects this position, however. In His divine nature, Christ is omniscient. He knows everything there is to know, for in Him there is no past or future but only the present where He knows everything there is to know or that can be known in all possible worlds. But in His mediatorial office, He revealed the will of the Father in and according to His human nature. Owen states, “For although the person of Christ, God and man, was our mediator…yet his human nature was that wherein he discharged the duties of his office.”10
> 
> Owen’s point will have, as we will see, the same implications for Christ’s other two offices, those of priest and king. In keeping with the Reformed distinction of the two natures, Christ received the necessary gifts and graces to be able to perform His duty as a prophet. Besides His own natural abilities—that is, His human nature had natural gifts and was free from sin—Christ also had a “peculiar endowment of the Spirit, without and beyond the bounds of all comprehensible measures, that he was to receive as the great prophet of the church, in whom the Father would speak and give out the last revelation of himself.”11 Though He received the Spirit at the moment of His incarnation, yet the full communication of the Holy Spirit came upon Christ at His baptism in the Jordan. In bringing forth new revelations, Christ received them from the Father by the Spirit.


----------



## MW (May 26, 2017)

This secondary source helps to show Owen's thought on Christ acting according to what was proper to the human nature, but it does not challenge Owen's own statement as to Christ acting according to what was proper to the divine nature. There are two sides. Presenting one side to the exclusion of the other is bound to be a distortion of the truth.


----------



## Dachaser (May 26, 2017)

Jack K said:


> The fact that the miracles reveal Jesus to be the Christ, and God, does not necessarily mean Jesus did the miracles in the power of his divine nature. There are many passages in the gospels that suggest Jesus, in his work as the Christ, was operating as the prophets before him did, discerning and following the will of God and then performing miracles in the Spirit's power. The passages suggesting a more direct use of his own divine power seem fewer and less explicit.
> 
> So Perg, I don't think you should feel like a heretic. I often notice that my students tend to be unimpressed by the life of Jesus, figuring that what he did was easy for him as God, and completely missing the fact that he was fully man and had tremendous, perfect faith. So I think it's helpful for a teacher to point out Jesus' pattern of dependence on the Spirit. But I stop short of making an absolute claim that Jesus did all his miracles only that way. That sort of statement feels to me like it may go too far, for the reasons regarding the person of Christ and the continued presence of his full deity that have been mentioned above.
> 
> That's how I currently teach, for what it's worth. But I think this is an excellent matter to ask about. I want to improve in my understanding of it.


Jesus Himself stated that he does everything in the power of the Holy Spirit, so while he never ceased to be God, would he not be trusting in the Spirit to accomplish His work while here on earth, just as we all should be?


----------



## Dachaser (May 26, 2017)

Jack K said:


> The fact that the miracles reveal Jesus to be the Christ, and God, does not necessarily mean Jesus did the miracles in the power of his divine nature. There are many passages in the gospels that suggest Jesus, in his work as the Christ, was operating as the prophets before him did, discerning and following the will of God and then performing miracles in the Spirit's power. The passages suggesting a more direct use of his own divine power seem fewer and less explicit.
> 
> So Perg, I don't think you should feel like a heretic. I often notice that my students tend to be unimpressed by the life of Jesus, figuring that what he did was easy for him as God, and completely missing the fact that he was fully man and had tremendous, perfect faith. So I think it's helpful for a teacher to point out Jesus' pattern of dependence on the Spirit. But I stop short of making an absolute claim that Jesus did all his miracles only that way. That sort of statement feels to me like it may go too far, for the reasons regarding the person of Christ and the continued presence of his full deity that have been mentioned above.
> 
> That's how I currently teach, for what it's worth. But I think this is an excellent matter to ask about. I want to improve in my understanding of it.


Think where this can get into problem areas is when one takes Him relying upon the Spirit to such a degree that he ceased being really God while here, or that he was somehow just showing us how to operate in "laws of the Kingdom", as many Charasmatics do with Him!


----------



## MW (May 26, 2017)

The Third Council of Constantinople: "We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says. Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that *his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation* (δἰ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκονομκῆς ἀναστροφῆς), and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet *each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly*. Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race."


----------



## Dachaser (May 27, 2017)

MW said:


> The Third Council of Constantinople: "We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says. Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that *his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation* (δἰ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκονομκῆς ἀναστροφῆς), and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet *each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly*. Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race."


So at times, when operating out of His human nature, relied upon the Holy spirit, and while operating in His deity did it from His divinity?


----------



## Pergamum (May 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So at times, when operating out of His human nature, relied upon the Holy spirit, and while operating in His deity did it from His divinity?



I also wondered the same thing since He was the God-Man throughout. He was reliant upon the Holy Spirit as our Perfect Example....unless He did really big things, then our Perfect Example no longer needed to rely upon the Holy Spirit but used His own strength instead?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 27, 2017)

Pergy,
Who is "He" in your representation? It is as though you are trying to _divide _his actions into those done by the "divine nature" and those done by the "human nature."

Classic formula: "Persons Act; Natures Are." The natures of Christ do NOTHING. The Person (hypostatic union and all) does what he does _according to _the properties of both natures as consistent with each unmixed and uncorrupted.

[With respect to the quote above from the 3rd Constantinopolitan: each nature "willing" and "doing;" I cannot speak to the translation or the timing of the deliverance; but consistent interpretation of the final meaning of the church by such terms would have us understand it thus: each nature *having* an expression of will and action consistent with its own qualities *in everything done by the Person*.]

The Man Christ Jesus did all that he did as One _perfectly _submitted under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit. None of us, no matter how fully or faithfully we act in dependency on the indwelling One is so ideally under his direction. Would that we were more than we are. But Jesus is our example.

The divine Son of God did all he did out of his own inestimable divinity. When Jesus was recognized as God, it was evident that he was able to do what he did _because _he was God.

So, Christ's miracles do double duty. They bear witness to what a man so completely in subjection to the Spirit is able to do. And they bear witness that he himself is divine.


----------



## Ed Walsh (May 27, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Or as the God-Man did He do all miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit?



I don't know if this is a blanket statement, but this passage in Luke seems to say what you are saying; that Jesus did (at least some) miracles by the power of God through faith -- as a man.

Luke 5:17
And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

(ESV)
On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him to heal.

The Scripture does attribute miracles to Christ’s power, (John 10:18) so does it also attribute power to the apostles. Yet we all agree that the Apostles did not use their own power.

Mark 3:14, 15
14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
15 *And to have power to heal* sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

Jesus fasted as a man, he suffered and died as a man. I think also he lived all his glorious life as a (perfect) man.


----------



## Dachaser (May 27, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> I don't know if this is a blanket statement, but this passage in Luke seems to say what you are saying; that Jesus did (at least some) miracles by the power of God through faith -- as a man.
> 
> Luke 5:17
> And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
> ...


So that would be what he "emptied" Himself of? the using of His own inate divine powers, and instead totally dependent upon the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Dachaser (May 27, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Pergy,
> Who is "He" in your representation? It is as though you are trying to _divide _his actions into those done by the "divine nature" and those done by the "human nature."
> 
> Classic formula: "Persons Act; Natures Are." The natures of Christ do NOTHING. The Person (hypostatic union and all) does what he does _according to _the properties of both natures as consistent with each unmixed and uncorrupted.
> ...


Jesus always still could have done any of His miracles by "Himself" though still, correct?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 27, 2017)

Ed, and Dave,
We need to move away from this _division _of Christ's activity, into the Person acting *sometimes *in this way and by this nature, and *some-other-times* by the other nature. This is the wrong way to think.

As Man, Jesus exercises miraculous power under Holy Ghost's auspices and direction. As God, he exercises *at the same time *as when we previously observe it his own divine power of miracle.

He (the Person) isn't doing one thing as a man and another as God, or inert as man and active as God (or vice versa). Each nature is exercised by the Person according to its inherent quality in *unified *activity.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 27, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Ed, and Dave,
> We need to move away from this _division _of Christ's activity, into the Person acting *sometimes *in this way and by this nature, and *some-other-times* by the other nature. This is the wrong way to think.
> 
> As Man, Jesus exercises miraculous power under Holy Ghost's auspices and direction. As God, he exercises *at the same time *as when we previously observe it his own divine power of miracle.
> ...


So whenever he was doing a miracle, regardless of doing it by the Holy Spirit or by Himself, was God still doing it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 27, 2017)

Miracles, by definition, are God's doing originally. They are in defiance or contravention of a natural, creational order of which man is part, to which man is bound. Miracles are divinely worked. We even correctly state this to be the case when a most-improbable coincidence of nature (a coincidence-miracle) brings about a blessing, which we wisely attribute to personal Providence, and not luck.

Now, if the Man Christ Jesus is doing miracles _by the Holy Spirit, _it would be wrong to say God the Holy Spirit *alone*--and not this Man-agent; God, irrespective of the man's presence or engagement--is doing a miracle. You might as well say that Elisha did not raise the Shunamite's son (2Ki.4:31-35; cf.8:1), nor did Peter raise Tabitha (Act.9:37-41).

But, Peter asks the crowd, Act.3:12, when he and John had healed the lame man: "...as if we by our own power or godliness had made this man walk?" No, it is the power of God working through them. So too, as respects the humanity of Christ the miracle is a manifestation of God the Holy Spirit's anointing baptism. And, as respects the divinity of Christ, it is his own unbounded Godhood that is revealed.

Our aim, regardless of our situational interest, should be to communicate the truth accurately. If I mean to emphasize the humanity of Christ in some teaching, then the Man Christ Jesus' Spirit-borne exercise should be plainly taught. But not so taught, that those listening depart from an understanding that the miracles attest to Jesus' divinity. That is one danger to be avoided.

It is equally damaging to teach the divinity of Christ as attested by his miracles, if by that teaching the hearers depart from an understanding of the humanity of Jesus, making him whom the Disciples knew into a kind of "divine avatar," and not the God *Incarnate*.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (May 27, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Pergy,
> Who is "He" in your representation? It is as though you are trying to _divide _his actions into those done by the "divine nature" and those done by the "human nature."
> 
> Classic formula: "Persons Act; Natures Are." The natures of Christ do NOTHING. The Person (hypostatic union and all) does what he does _according to _the properties of both natures as consistent with each unmixed and uncorrupted.
> ...



Thanks. That is very helpful. Yes, I agree.


----------



## brendanchatt (May 28, 2017)

Would we say that _Christ did miracles by the power of his own Holy Spirit_?


----------



## Dachaser (May 29, 2017)

brendanchatt said:


> Would we say that _Christ did miracles by the power of his own Holy Spirit_?


That would be tricky to me, as the Holy Spirit is distinct from Jesus, as being the Third person of the Trinity...


----------

