Answer to A Born Again About the Divine Motherhood of Mary

                         Basilica of Saint Mary Major to Commemorate the Council of Ephesus
                                            
Jose Santiago Guerrero a Catholic, posted at the facebook group the Splendor of the Church Ring of Fire regarding the objection of a Born Again against the Motherhood of Mary, he said:

  As posted by Si Santiago Guerrero

BROTHER AND SISTER IN CHRIST.. MAY KA DEBATE AKO SA FB MAGPINSAN NA BORN AGAIN..ITO ANG PARATANG NILA KAY MAMA MARY AT KAY PAPA HESUS...MAY MABABASA BA SA BIBLE NA carnal sinful nature

God is eternal. He existed without the help of anyone. God had no father nor mother in that sense. He is the Self-Existent One. So, it is NOT correct to say that God has a mother. Mary is not the mother of God. She is the mother of the man Christ Jesus. You should understand the dual nature of Jesus. Mary is human, just like us. Just like us, Mary had a carnal sinful nature. As the Word of God says in Romans 3:23, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that includes Mary. Just like us, Mary needs the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be saved. You can read in the book of Acts that she is one of the 120 disciples who received the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. I desire you read your Bible diligently with the help of the Holy Spirit so you could see the light in it. ;)

To answer these objections from a born again, I will divide it into premises:

Born Again Objection 1: God is eternal. He existed without the help of anyone. God had no father nor mother in that sense. He is the Self-Existent One. So, it is NOT correct to say that God has a mother. Mary is not the mother of God.

Reply to Objection 1: There is no problem in accepting that God is eternal and existed without the help of anyone, yet it is true that God had no mother and father, yet, these born again heretics forgot, that the Eternal Word was also made flesh and that this Word was both God and Man, as Saint Cyril puts it:

 "For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two nature being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union. So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman,, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh." (The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, Session 1, Council of Ephesus)

 As we can see Saint Cyril points out that the baby being born of the Virgin is only one person and that is the Second Person of the Trinity, not because the Godhead came from the Virgin, but because this Word Made Flesh took flesh from the Virgin and was born both God and man. If we will base it on Scriptures it is said that the child being born of Mary was the Immanuel, born of the Holy Ghost which means God with us:

"Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife : for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins . Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying. Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring  forth a son, and they shall call his name Imman'u-el, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:21-23, KJV)

who is this child being born of the Virgin according to Isaiah, Saint Paul further clarifies:

"But when the fulfillment of the time came, God sent his Son, born through a woman, and born under the Law." (Galatians 4:4, Common English Bible)

It was very clear in the Bible that one being born of the Woman Virgin is no other than the Son of God, and as the angel puts it, it was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word Made Flesh and dwelt amongst us, it is written by the Apostle John:

"In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God." (John 1:1, Jerusalem Bible)

"The Word was made flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, Jerusalem Bible)

It is very clear that the child being born of Mary was not just a human child but the Word made flesh who dwelt amongst us, who is also God, we cannot separate the two natures of Christ. The Eternal Word took flesh from Mary and was united into it, since the union of the two natures make us One Christ and One Son. The Born Again cannot deny, that the child being born of Mary was truly the Word Incarnate and not just the man Christ, for if we separate the two natures, our Lord would look like a monster or a demigod. Yet the mere fact, that since the child being born of Mary was indeed God incarnate, it ir also right to say that Mary is also the Mother of God, not because the Godhead of the Son came from her, but because it was the Word made flesh that he bore and give birth.       

Born Again Objection 2: he is the mother of the man Christ Jesus. You should understand the dual nature of Jesus.

Reply to Objection 2: By saying the words " he is the mother of the man Christ Jesus. You should understand the dual nature of Jesus." would mean a denial of the divinity of Christ and would deny that the child that was born of Mary was not God but mere man, since you would be making Christ a monster by dividing him into two. Saint Cyril said:

 "Neither do we say that his flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God was laid aside for the nature of flesh; for he is unchanged and absolutely unchangeable, being the same always, according to the Scriptures. For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his Virgin Mother, he filled all creation as God. and was a fellow-ruler with him who begot him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits.

Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ we do not divide the God from the man, nor separate him into parts, as though the two natures were mutually united in him only through a sharing of dignity and authority (for that is a novelty and nothing else), neither do we give separately to the Word of God the name Christ and the same name separately to a different one born of a woman but we know only one Christ, the Word from Go the Father with his own Flesh. For as man he was anointed with us, although it is he himself who gives the Spirit to those who are worthy and not in measure, according to the saying of the blessed Evangelist John.
But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt in him as in a common man born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing man; for although the Word tabernacled among us, it is also said that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; but we understand that he became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality (κατὰ τον ἴσον ἐν αὐτῷ τρόπον). But being made one κατὰ φύσιν, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.
One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy discip [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one. Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be apposition, for this does not suffice for natural oneness (πρὸς ἕνωσον φυσικήν). Nor yet according to relative participation, as we are also joined to the Lord, as it is written we are one Spirit in him. Rather we deprecate the term of junction (συναφείας) as not having sufficiently signified the oneness. But we do not call the Word of God the Father, the God nor the Lord of Christ, lest we openly cut in two the one Christ, the Son and Lord, and fall under the charge of blasphemy, making him the God and Lord of himself. For the Word of God as we have said already, was made hypostatically one in flesh, yet he is God of all and he rules all; but he is not the slave of himself, nor his own Lord. For it is foolish, or rather impious, to think or teach thus. For he said that God was his Father, although he was God by nature, and of his substance. Yet we are not ignorant that while he remained God, he also became man and subject to God, according to the law suitable to the nature of the manhood. But how could he become the God or Lord of himself? Consequently as man, and with regard to the measure of his humiliation, it is said that he is equally with us subject to God; thus he became under the Law, although as God he spoke the Law and was the Law-giver." (The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Session 1, Council of Ephesus)


Saint Cyril was right in saying that there is only One Lord Jesus Christ, and that it is blasphemy to cut him in two parts. That he remain God and man since his human birth to his death and resurrection. This born again heretic had made such blasphemy by cutting the natures of the Lord Jesus, since he thinks that the one being born of the Virgin was only a mere man and not God made flesh, at that first instant he already denied the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we will quote from Scripture, the proof that Mary is not only the Mother of the Man Christ but also the Mother of God is the words being uttered by his cousin Elizabeth it is said.

"But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:45, NIV)

who is this 'Lord' being mentioned by Elizabeth, it is no other than the Lord Jesus Christ himself which is God, in the Bible there is no other person being called as 'Lord' with the capital 'L' take note, with the capital 'L'  but the God of Israel Himself, many times in the Bible that He is called as 'Lord'. For it it written in the Book of Deuteronomy about the Shema:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord  our God is one Lord.." (Deuteronomy 6:4, KJV)

It is very evident that the 'Lord' being mentioned by Elizabeth was no other than God himself.

Born Again Objection 3: Mary is human, just like us. Just like us, Mary had a carnal sinful nature. As the Word of God says in Romans 3:23, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that includes Mary. 

Reply to Objection 3: There is no problem with regards in saying that Mary is only human like us, yet it is absurd to say that Mary had a sinful nature by making Romans 3:23 an example to justify one's claim. It is not possible, since it was also written by the Apostle John "To lead a sinful life is to belong to the devil, since the devil was a sinner from the beginning." (1 John 3:8, Jerusalem Bible). If Mary had a carnal sinful nature, then as the Apostle John says that he would become a slave of the devil. If that is so how come she would be chosen to give birth and to become the mother of the Saviour who would defeat and destroy the devil, for it is also written by John "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work." (1 John 3:8, NIV), If Mary would have a sinful nature and then she would give birth to the devil's enemy who would destroy his works, then it shows that it is very contradictory already, for it was written by the Apostle Paul "Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-15, NIV). That would also mean that there is riot in Satan's kingdom since one of his servants became an instrument of his enemy to defeat him, how can his kingdom stand if that happens, as mentioned by the Lord Jesus to his disciples  with this parable:

"How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." (Mark 3:23, KJV)

so if Mary is born with sinful nature, he will be under the devil's kingdom already, and if God will use a servant to turn against its master, this  master's house is already divided, and as Jesus said a house divided against itself will not stand. I know the born again are very much aware of  the ancient prophecy of God to he snake wherein, God wull make the devil and the woman and her seed to be enemies:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15, RSV-CE)

and in another verse it is written:

"The dragon was furious with the woman and went off to fight against the rest of her descendants, all those who obey God's commandments are faithful to the truth revealed by Jesus." (Revelation 12:17, Good News Translation)

If Mary would have a carnal sinful nature and is not excluded in Romans 3:23 and which would put her under th dominion of the Devil as specified in 1 John 3:8, then it would put her in serving two Masters, that is God and devil, and this is not so for Christ told us that:

"No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24, New American Bible-Revised Edition)

since we are aware that we are God's Temple, and our bodies are Temples of the Holy Spirit for Paul puts it:

"Don't you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? God will destroy anyone who destroys this temple. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." (1 Corinthians 3:16, NLT)

and since we are God's Temple, God made this promise that he will consecrate His Temple, he will put His Name in His Temple forever:

"I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time." (1 Kings 9:3, RSV-CE)

this dwelling of God in his Temple which is our bodies was already been spoken by the Archangel Gabriel to Mary how God is with he and how the Holy Spirit will overshadow her, just like the presence of God in the Temple:

"And he came to her and said "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!." (Luke 1:28, RSV-CE)

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (Luke 1:35, RSV-CE)

If Mary has a carnal sinful nature how come that she is full of grace and that the Lord is with her? How can the Holy Spirit dwell in a temple which formerly a dwelling place of demons, for Paul said:

"What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said: I will give them and move among them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Therefore, come forth from them and be separate," says the Lord, "and touch nothing unclean; then I will receive you and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:16- 18, New American Bible-Revised Edition)

for it is not possible that somebody who was born of sin and has a sinful nature should approach the presence of God which is Holy, for no man who is born with defiled lips should approach God's glory of he will be doomed, similar to what happened to the prophet Isaiah when he wrote:

"Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." (Isaiah 6:5, NAB-RE)

As we can see that anybody who will see God who was defiled with sin would die if they will behold God face to face, also in the Old Testament that anybody who would touch the sacred objects of the Temple especially the Ark of the Covenant would suddenly be killed.So how can Mary be defiled with sin if God the Son, the Second Person of of the Trinity would use her body to take human flesh and incarnate, how could the Holy Spirit overshadow a dwelling which was once a dwelling of idols and demons. For Christ said "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8, NAB-RE) if Mary would not have a pure heart, how could God dwell in her and how could she behold God. It would be contradictory already. Since it was written also in the Scriptures that "Nothing unclean will enter it." (Revelation 21:27, CCB) for nothing unclean and undefiled shall enter the dwelling of God, and what is that dwelling? our bodies, so Mary's body should be clean and pure and not defiled in order that God would enter into such dwelling. For if Mary's body would tainted with sin, as the prophet Ezekiel had said "Then the glory of the Lord left the threshold of the temple and took its place upon the cherubim." (Ezekiel 10:18, NAB-RE), God will leave a temple being defiled by sin and that is why it is impossible that Mary should be tainted by it. For God  said that "this house , which I have hallowed  for my name , will I cast out of my sight." (1 Kings 9:7, KJV). That is why as the Apostle John said in his first letter that "No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him." (1 John 3:6, NAB-RE), and he further added that "No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him and he cannot sin because he is born of  God." (1 John 3:9, RSV-CE). That is why Romans 3:23 is not applicable to Mary because of her role as the dwelling place of the One Who Wil Destroy the Works of the Devil. Mary needed a Savior, yes, she needed one and it was God Himself who saved her from being tainted by sin, of being deprived of Glory and it was also through the merits of her Son that she was preserved. When Mary said that "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47, RSV-CE),  it means that Mary was saved by God already at the first instant when she was been by her mother. In reality, this verse does not contradict the Church dogma of the sinlessness of Mary but rather supports it because as Pope Pius puts it in his Papal Bull Inefabilis Deus, he said: "The Most Blessed Virgn Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almigthy God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (491, pg. 138, Catechism of the Catholic Church). If we try to look at the phrase of the Pope, Mary was indeed saved by God and that Mary really needed a Savior because it is said there that, "by a singular grace and privilege of Almigthy God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin by a singular grace and privilege of Almigthy God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." It means that Mary was already saved by God, not because of Mary's doing but because God's, Mary was already saved in advanced by God. Since without God it is not possible for it is written "Because without me you can do nothing." (John 15: 5, NAB-RE) without God, Mary would not be saved from original sin, from the sin that human race had inerited from the first parents. Because of that it is also written as Moses puts it, "Fear ye not. stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will show to you today." (Exodus 14:13, KJV). God had saved Mary already without Mary's doing, saved her and preserved her in advance from the slavery of sin, that is why Mary acclaimed in her canticle "The Mighty One has done great things for me and holy is his name." (Luke 1:49, NAB-RE). 

Born Again Objection 4: Just like us, Mary needs the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be saved. You can read in the book of Acts that she is one of the 120 disciples who received the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. I desire you read your Bible diligently with the help of the Holy Spirit so you could see the light in it. 

Reply to Objection 4: This assumption is absurd since it was not in Pentecost that Mary received the Holy Spirit. Since if we try to look at the Gospel of Luke, the Mary already received the Holy Spirit when she bore Jesus in her womb, for it is written "And the angel said to her in reply, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (Luke 1:35, NAB-RE). It is therefore very clear that the Holy Spirit was already with Mary at the time when he conceived Jesus in her womb and not in the Pentecost. When Mary received already the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost, it doesn't mean that she is also baptized and doesn't mean also because of that would justify that she has a sinful nature. That is not true, because even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, sinless as he is, also received Baptism of repentacne by his cousin John the Baptist. Does that mean that Jesus would be cleansed from sin?  Does that mean that Jesus had committed sin also and has a sinful nature. Didn't he said to the Baptist these words "Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matthew 3:15, NAB-RE). Let us remember that if Mary received Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, then it will not be a first baptism, since Mary already received the Holy Spirit during the Annunciation, it will become a second baptism already which is absurd. Let us remember that coming of the Holy Spirit doesn't mean only of being Baptized, but rather, the Holy Spirit's presence is to strengthen and guide the Church and to teach the Church about Jesus Christ. For it is written by John "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name-he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26, NAB-RE). In other words, Mary's role in Pentecost was not to be baptized, but to be more united with the Church and in the formation of Mystical Body of Christ, since she is the perfect disciple. So during the Pentecost, Mary did not receive the Holy Spirit in order to be purified from her sinful nature, since she received already the indwelling of the Holy Spirit during the Annunciation.


I think this Born Again should  first read again his Bible since he/she doesn't know what he/she is doing and saying. Since their justifications are not reasonable nor logical.