Background on the Evangelical Theological Society

The Evangelical Theological Society was established to uphold a commitment to Scripture’s inerrancy, stressing that the Bible is “the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Many conservative scholars appreciated this doctrinal basis because it appeared to stand unequivocally for full factual accuracy. Norman Geisler joined in that spirit, serving in various leadership roles and actively defending the reliability of Scripture. He was president of the Society and founded the Evangelical Philosophical Society as a sister organization. From the beginning, his stance on biblical inerrancy was uncompromising. He underscored that “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16) and does not contain factual mistakes, since it proceeds from the flawless character of Jehovah (Ps. 18:30).

Tension Over Open Theism

The issue that triggered Geisler’s departure centered on open theism, a theological viewpoint that posits God does not exhaustively know or determine all future human choices. Some within ETS embraced open theism or tolerated it. Advocates of open theism argued that certain biblical texts portray Jehovah adjusting to human decisions in ways that suggest genuine uncertainty about future free acts. They maintained that Scripture’s warnings and conditional prophecies demonstrated a more dynamic relationship between God and humanity (Jon. 3:10). Critics like Geisler saw open theism as a denial of the Bible’s factual inerrancy, since it implied that prophecies could fail and that portrayals of God’s foreknowledge in Scripture were inaccurate.

Concerns About Doctrinal Integrity

Geisler believed the ETS founders intended the statement on inerrancy to exclude any allowance for theological positions that weakened the exhaustive foreknowledge of God or denied the factual precision of scriptural accounts. He concluded that open theism effectively taught a God who errs in predicting certain events and a Bible that might record prophecies never fulfilled in ways the text originally indicated. He held that such ideas were incompatible with the meaning of “inerrancy” as stated by the Society’s framers. He referred to examples in which open theists defended the idea of incomplete or mistaken divine predictions, contending that this outlook undercut trust in Scripture’s total reliability (Deut. 18:21–22). To Geisler, if one admits that biblical statements about the future can fail, then one has departed from the historical ETS position that the Bible is “inerrant in the autographs.”

The ETS Vote on Clark Pinnock and John Sanders

Clark Pinnock and John Sanders were both affiliated with open theism. Geisler, along with others, insisted that their membership should be revoked because their published views appeared to conflict with the organization’s statement. Pinnock acknowledged that some biblical figures presented certain prophecies that were never literally fulfilled, indicating inaccuracies if taken at face value. Sanders argued that there were unconditional prophecies that went unrealized, pointing to a future that is not exhaustively determined in the biblical record.

The ETS membership ultimately voted to keep Pinnock and Sanders within the Society. Although there was considerable disagreement, the final vote approved their continued membership. Nearly sixty-three percent voted to retain Pinnock, a margin substantial enough to signal that a majority did not regard open theism as a denial of inerrancy in the sense that required expulsion from the Society. Geisler viewed this decision as a departure from the framers’ intention for the doctrinal statement and a breach of the original understanding that Scripture is fully accurate in all its assertions (Ps. 119:160).

Geisler’s Assertion of a “Revisionist Hermeneutic”

Geisler lamented that ETS had accepted a “revisionist interpretation” of its own doctrinal statement by allowing positions that the original founders would have excluded. He cited earlier Society rulings where members were asked to sign the statement without personal reinterpretations. He pointed to the 1970 Minutes in which it was affirmed that private “idiosyncratic” qualifications to the doctrinal basis were not permissible. He saw open theism as precisely such a qualification, effectively redefining what inerrancy meant. Geisler believed that a majority’s acceptance of Pinnock and Sanders demonstrated a willingness to stretch the inerrancy statement until it no longer reliably signified the same truth the founders intended.

Departure After Decades of Service

Geisler’s affiliation with ETS spanned forty-four years. He served as a president, delivered key papers at annual gatherings, and was a respected voice for classical Christian apologetics. His decision to resign was not casual. He described it as “painful” and “tearful,” given his long history with the organization. Despite that sorrow, he regarded the final ETS vote as an unmistakable signal that the Society would not enforce the strict view of biblical inerrancy he believed it was established to uphold.

He argued that with open theism openly embraced, ETS had logically endorsed a concept of Scripture at odds with its founders’ understanding. Geisler insisted that if Scripture is truly the Word of God, then its prophecies cannot fail in the sense that open theists allege, and God cannot be misrepresented as lacking full knowledge. He saw the continuing membership of open theists as proof that the Society had abandoned the consistent application of its statement.

Broader Implications for Apologetics

In Geisler’s view, biblical inerrancy served as the bedrock for defending Christian truth. He had spent decades publishing works on apologetics, such as “When Skeptics Ask,” and co-authoring major volumes on the trustworthiness of Scripture. He urged fellow evangelicals to cling to an unmodified doctrine of total factual inerrancy. He argued that the church must treat Scripture as correct when it addresses historical or predictive matters (Josh. 6:1–5). Allowing errors in biblical narratives diminished confidence in its divine origin. He also contended that effectively challenging skeptics or secular critics begins with the premise that the Bible is wholly reliable, for if one concedes that factual mistakes or unrealized prophecies exist, the entire apologetic structure is imperiled.

Conclusion

Norman L. Geisler’s resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society was a culmination of deeply held convictions about Scripture. He firmly believed that open theism contradicted the unequivocal nature of biblical inerrancy because it allowed for failed predictions and placed limitations on God’s exhaustive knowledge. His departure signaled his refusal to remain in a Society that, in his view, no longer consistently upheld the doctrinal stance set by its founders. For Geisler, preserving doctrinal clarity on Scripture’s total trustworthiness was a moral necessity. He wrote that his heart was heavy over leaving the organization he had served for so many years, yet he felt compelled to uphold a high view of the Bible’s integrity. His story reminds believers that the question of biblical inerrancy calls for unwavering commitment. The Scriptures declare: “Every word of God proves true” (Prov. 30:5). Geisler’s legacy underscores that this affirmation stands as a safeguard against theological compromises that dilute the power and authority of Scripture.

You May Also Enjoy

Could Jesus Have Been Associated With the Essenes?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).