To: what's up; CynicalBear
Even if it said "full of grace" I really don't get how there's a jump from that to Mary being sinless. It can't be because if there's no sin, there's no need for grace.
Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.
If there was no sin in Mary, she would not need grace, therefore couldn't be *full of grace*.
132 posted on
01/24/2015 8:21:09 PM PST by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: metmom
Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. If there was no sin in Mary, she would not need grace, therefore couldn't be *full of grace*. I may be wrong (I don't think so), but I'd place a large bet on the fact that you've never taken a course in logic, and if you did, you didn't do real well in it....
143 posted on
01/24/2015 8:53:44 PM PST by
terycarl
(common sense prevails over all)
To: metmom
It can't be because if there's no sin, there's no need for grace. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. If there was no sin in Mary, she would not need grace, therefore couldn't be *full of grace*. Correct. Jesus didn't need grace because He was not a sinner. He is the one who provides grace.
Mary needed grace because she was a sinner.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson