If a person offends you and apologizes, but does not admit what they've done, are they really apologizing? If they ask for forgiveness, but will not admit the specific offense, can we even be sure that they really understand what it was that they did?? Are we not to hold them accountable?
I just want to know what the rest of you think.
Thanks,
Maggie
One can be apologetic, and sincere about it, that another has been offended, but this doesn't mean that they have to meet the demand of the one offended to recant or repent over what actually offended.
I try not to offend people, but sometimes offense is taken over doctrinal differences. I can be sorry my antagonist is offended, but, I am not going to meet a demand that I feel is in error. In other words, if someone wants me to admit the doctrine is in error, then they are going to have to show how, then, if it is shown to be in error, the apology should be forthcoming. but, if the offense was a genuine address of a legitimate issue, then to expect an apology which also recants what they were offended for is asking too much.
We cannot hold someone else accountable for error if we cannot adequately show they were in error to begin with.
God bless.