Introduction: The Enduring and Troubling Influence of Finis Dake
Within the landscape of American Christianity, particularly in Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Word of Faith movements, the name Finis Jennings Dake (1902–1987) carries significant weight. His magnum opus, the Dake Annotated Reference Bible, first published in 1963, remains a fixture on the shelves of Christian bookstores and in the personal libraries of countless pastors and laypeople1. Dake’s influence, often operating beneath the surface, has been profound, shaping the theology of prominent figures like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland and providing a seemingly authoritative wellspring of biblical “facts” for generations of believers1. His works promise a clear, simple, and powerful understanding of Scripture, an appeal that has ensured their enduring popularity3.
However, beneath the veneer of exhaustive cross-references and voluminous notes lies a system of theology that, on the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, stands in stark opposition to historic, biblical orthodoxy. While many users of the Dake Bible may benefit from its charts and lists, they often remain unaware of the deeply problematic and heretical teachings embedded within its commentary. These are not minor points of disagreement over secondary issues, but radical departures concerning the very nature and character of God Himself.
This report will provide a comprehensive theological analysis and critique of Finis Dake’s doctrines concerning the Holy Trinity and the divine attributes of omnipresence and omniscience. It will demonstrate from Dake’s own published works—primarily his Dake Annotated Reference Bible and his systematic theology, God’s Plan for Man—that his teachings are unbiblical and align with ancient heresies long condemned by the Church. The central thesis of this analysis is that Dake’s errors are not random or isolated but are the direct and logical consequence of a flawed, hyper-literal hermeneutic that fundamentally misunderstands how Scripture, as a divine accommodation to human language, speaks about the infinite God. By systematically dismantling this faulty foundation and exposing its heretical conclusions, this report aims to equip pastors, teachers, and discerning believers to recognize and refute the dangerous doctrines of Finis Dake, calling the Church back to a faithful and worshipful understanding of the one true and living God as He has revealed Himself in the totality of His Word.
Section I: The Root of Error: Dake’s Hyper-Literal Hermeneutic
Before examining the specific theological errors of Finis Dake, it is essential to understand the interpretive foundation upon which his entire system is built. All theological systems are products of a particular hermeneutic—a method of interpretation. Dake’s system is no exception. His most profound and dangerous errors concerning the nature of God are not arbitrary but flow logically from a single, foundational mistake: a rigid and inconsistent hyper-literalism that fails to properly account for the nature of divine revelation and the use of figurative language in Scripture. This flawed hermeneutic is the first domino to fall, setting off a chain reaction that ultimately topples the core doctrines of the Christian faith.
Dake’s Interpretive Rule
Dake championed a hermeneutic of appealing simplicity. He presented his method as a straightforward, “common sense” approach that cut through centuries of theological tradition and denominational confusion. His primary rule, stated repeatedly, is to take the Bible at face value. In his own words, the guiding principle is to: “Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey. Statements of fact and historical accounts are accepted as such”3. In God’s Plan for Man, he elaborates on this principle, urging his readers to abandon all external interpretive aids and rely solely on a plain reading of the text: “Always reconcile your ideas to the Bible. Let the plain language of the references given be read and understood in the same literal way that we would understand similar statements in any other book”5. He insists that “God knows what He is talking about… He said what He meant, and meant what He said”5. To Dake, any difficulty in understanding the Bible stems not from the text itself, but from “Pride, willfulness, and rebellion against what ‘is written'”5. This approach positions him as a restorer of plain truth against the obfuscations of theologians who, in his view, have made the simple Word of God unnecessarily complex.
The Problem of Anthropomorphism
While Dake’s call to honor the biblical text is commendable, his application of this principle is fatally flawed. His hermeneutic fails to properly engage with a crucial aspect of divine revelation known as anthropomorphism. The term, derived from the Greek words for “man” (anthropos) and “form” (morphe), refers to the practice of ascribing human characteristics, physical attributes, or emotions to God6. Historic Christian theology has always recognized that the Bible uses anthropomorphic language not to provide a literal, anatomical description of God, but as a necessary accommodation to finite human understanding8. The infinite, eternal, and invisible God must reveal Himself in terms that His finite, temporal, and physical creatures can comprehend. Thus, Scripture speaks of God’s “mighty arm” (Exodus 15:16) to convey His omnipotence, His “eyes” (Psalm 34:15) to express His omniscience, and His “repenting” or “grieving” (Genesis 6:6) to communicate His profound displeasure with sin6. These are not literal descriptions of a divine body or fluctuating emotional states but are powerful metaphors that convey truths about God’s character and actions in a relatable way. As the theologian Louis Berkhof explains, this language is symbolic and must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the higher, more abstract biblical truth that “God is spirit” (John 4:24). To insist on a literal interpretation of these figures of speech is to fundamentally misunderstand their purpose and to create a caricature of God.
Dake’s Rejection of Figurative Language for God
This is precisely where Dake’s hermeneutic leads him astray. He applies his rule of literalism with a destructive rigidity to the Bible’s anthropomorphic descriptions of God. He dismisses the historic understanding of such language as figurative and insists that these passages are literal descriptions of God’s “spirit body.” In God’s Plan for Man, Dake argues that since man was made in God’s image and man has a body, “then God must have a body, and an outward form and shape”2. He provides an exhaustive list of God’s supposed body parts, citing Scripture as literal proof: “He has ‘a heart’ (Gen. 6:6); ‘hands’ and ‘fingers’ (Exod. 31:18); ‘nostrils’ (Ps. 18:8, 15); ‘mouth’ (Num. 12:8); ‘lips’ and ‘tongue’ (Isa. 30:27); ‘feet’ (Ezek. 1:27); ‘eyes,’ ‘eyelids,’ ‘sight’ (Ps. 11:4); ‘hair,’ ‘head,’ ‘face,’ ‘arms’ (Dan. 7:9–14); ‘loins’ (Ezek. 1:26–28); and ‘bodily presence’ (Gen. 3:8)”1. Dake concludes that these are not figures of speech but descriptions of the “real bodily parts of God”6. The profound inconsistency of this method is glaring. If Dake were to apply his literalism consistently, he would be forced to conclude that God is a bird with feathers (Psalm 91:4), a rock (Psalm 18:2), or a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). He implicitly recognizes the absurdity of this, yet he arbitrarily decides that anthropomorphic descriptions are literal while other metaphors are not1. This selective literalism is not a faithful adherence to Scripture but an imposition of a preconceived system onto the text. By taking these accommodated expressions literally, Dake creates a finite, physical deity and, in the words of one critic, has “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man”1.
The Hermeneutical Domino Effect
Dake’s entire system of theological error is not a collection of independent mistakes but a logical chain reaction. His hyper-literalism is the first domino to fall, and its collapse triggers a cascade that demolishes the central pillars of Christian theism. This progression is not accidental; it is the inevitable result of his starting premise. First, the rigid application of his hermeneutic to anthropomorphic language forces the conclusion that God the Father must possess a tangible, localized spirit-body with parts like a human. This is the first domino: the creation of a corporeal God2. Second, because Dake understands the term “person” in a modern, human sense—as a distinct, self-contained being—he applies this same logic to the Trinity. If the Father has a body, soul, and spirit, then the Son and the Holy Spirit must also each have their own separate body, soul, and spirit. This leads directly to the second domino: the doctrine of Tritheism. The Godhead is no longer one Being in three Persons, but a committee of three separate divine Beings, united only in purpose1. Third, a being with a localized, physical body cannot, by definition, be everywhere at once. A body, even a “spirit body,” occupies a specific location in space and must travel from one point to another. Therefore, Dake is forced to conclude that God is not omnipresent. This is the third domino: the denial of omnipresence1. Fourth, if God is localized and must travel to observe events—as Dake explicitly argues from God’s statement in Genesis 18:21 that He will “go down… and see” what is happening in Sodom—then God must learn new information. He cannot possess exhaustive, eternal knowledge. He is a being who discovers facts and is surprised by the free-will actions of His creatures. This is the fourth and final domino: the denial of omniscience1. This chain reaction demonstrates that Dake’s specific heresies are not the root of the problem; they are the poisonous fruit. The root is his hermeneutic. To effectively refute his teachings, one cannot simply address his errors in isolation. One must first expose and dismantle the faulty interpretive foundation upon which his entire theological structure is built.
Section II: A Fractured Godhead: Dake’s Doctrine of Tritheism
Flowing directly from his hyper-literal hermeneutic is Dake’s radical redefinition of the Godhead. By interpreting “person” in a human sense and “image of God” as a physical blueprint, Dake abandons the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity and embraces the ancient heresy of Tritheism—the belief in three distinct gods. This section will outline the orthodox doctrine, present Dake’s tritheistic alternative in his own words, and offer a biblical rebuttal.
The Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery, yet it is the bedrock of Christian theology, summarizing the Bible’s teaching on who God is. Historic orthodoxy, crystallized in the early ecumenical creeds, affirms that there is only one God, who exists eternally in three distinct, co-equal, and co-eternal Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit11. The crucial distinction, which Dake fails to make, is between essence (the “what” of God) and person (the “who” of God). There is one divine essence or substance, but three personal subsistences13. The Athanasian Creed provides a benchmark for this doctrine, carefully guarding against two opposite errors. It states that Christians “worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance”1. To “confound the Persons” is the error of Modalism (which claims God is one person who reveals Himself in three different modes). To “divide the Substance” is the error of Tritheism (which claims there are three separate divine beings). Orthodox Christianity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three parts of God, nor three modes of God, but are each fully God, sharing the one, undivided divine nature14.
Dake’s “Three Beings”
Dake openly rejects this historic formulation. He uses the term “Trinity,” but as will be shown, he employs a deceptive strategy of redefining it to fit his own system. For Dake, the Trinity is not one Being, but three. He teaches that the Godhead consists of “three separate and distinct persons… each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being… has his own”2. He finds the orthodox doctrine of one divine essence incomprehensible and dismisses it as a “fallacy” and “ridiculous”2. In God’s Plan for Man, he asks rhetorically:
“What is there hard to understand about three persons in the Godhead being three separate persons in the same sense we can conceive of any other three persons? What is there hard to understand about three persons being one in unity as we can conceive of any number of persons? Do we have to believe that three persons must become one person in order to be three in one? Is this the case with three men who are one in unity? If not, then this is not the case of the three separate persons in the Godhead”1.
This statement is a clear and unambiguous affirmation of Tritheism. He explicitly reduces the unity of the Godhead to a mere unity of purpose or agreement, identical to the unity that can exist between three human beings. This is a “social” model of the Trinity taken to its heretical extreme, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not one Being but three separate, individual beings who form a divine society or family16. This is precisely the error of “dividing the Substance” against which the Athanasian Creed warns. This deceptive method of redefinition is a hallmark of Dake’s teaching. He does not openly state, “I reject the Trinity.” Instead, he co-opts the term, empties it of its historical and theological meaning, and injects his own heretical definition. He creates a “straw man” of the orthodox position, misrepresenting it as the nonsensical idea of “three persons in one person,” a view no reputable theologian has ever held1. He then presents his own Tritheistic view as the only logical and biblical alternative. This rhetorical strategy allows his teachings to sound orthodox to the undiscerning reader, while in reality, it fundamentally subverts the biblical doctrine of God. This same tactic is employed when he uses the word “omniscient” while denying that God knows all things1. This is not simply a theological error; it is a dangerously misleading method of communication that masks heresy with the language of orthodoxy.
Biblical Rebuttal: The Unwavering Monotheism of Scripture
Dake’s doctrine of three divine beings collapses under the weight of Scripture’s clear and persistent witness to the existence of only one God. The central confession of Israel, and a foundational truth of Christianity, is monotheism. Deuteronomy 6:4 (The Shema): “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” This is the cornerstone of biblical monotheism. The Hebrew word for “one” (echad) can at times refer to a compound unity (as in Genesis 2:24, where man and woman become “one flesh”), and Dake seizes upon this to argue it means only a unity of purpose. However, its primary meaning is that of a single, unique entity. When used of God, it asserts His absolute uniqueness and singularity against the polytheism of the surrounding nations. To reduce its meaning here to a mere “unified team” is to evacuate the verse of its primary theological force1. The Witness of Isaiah: The prophet Isaiah provides some of the most explicit statements of monotheism in all of Scripture. God Himself declares through the prophet:
“Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43:10-11).
“I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6).
“I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5).
These absolute declarations leave no room for Dake’s concept of three separate divine beings. If there are three beings who are each God, then there are three Gods, a direct contradiction of God’s own testimony about Himself. The Witness of the New Testament: The New Testament continues this unwavering commitment to monotheism, even as it reveals the mystery of God’s triune nature.
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).
“You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (James 2:19).
“We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one” (1 Corinthians 8:4).
Dake’s system attempts to resolve the mystery of the Trinity by sacrificing the unity of God. He flattens the biblical data into a simplistic, rationalistic model of three gods working together. The orthodox doctrine, in contrast, holds the biblical tension: God is one in His essential Being, yet He exists as three distinct Persons. Dake’s Tritheism is not a faithful interpretation of Scripture but a departure from it, a rationalistic reduction that ultimately presents a different god—or gods—than the one true God of the Bible.
Section III: A Localized God: Dake’s Denial of Divine Omnipresence
The second domino to fall in Dake’s theological system is the doctrine of God’s omnipresence. Having established to his own satisfaction that God possesses a localized “spirit body,” Dake is logically forced to conclude that God cannot be everywhere at once. This teaching strips God of His infinitude and reduces Him to a finite being confined by the very space and time He created.
The Orthodox Doctrine of Omnipresence
Historic Christian theology affirms that God is omnipresent, meaning He is an infinite Spirit who transcends all spatial limitations. His whole and undivided essence is present everywhere, at every moment18. This does not mean that God is diffused throughout creation like an ethereal gas, with parts of Him in different places. Rather, the one, simple, undivided God is fully present at every point in space, yet is not contained by space21. As Stephen Charnock articulated, God “compasseth all, is encompassed by none”19. This doctrine is firmly rooted in Scripture:
Psalm 139:7-10: David marvels at God’s inescapable presence: “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.” This poetic language describes a presence that fills the entire cosmos, from the highest heavens to the depths of the grave21.
Jeremiah 23:23-24: God Himself poses the rhetorical questions: “‘Am I a God at hand,’ declares the LORD, ‘and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ declares the LORD.” The clear implication is that God’s presence fills all of reality, leaving no place for anyone to hide from His sight19.
1 Kings 8:27: In his prayer dedicating the temple, Solomon acknowledges God’s transcendence: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!” Even the most sacred space on earth cannot contain the infinite God18.
Orthodoxy also distinguishes between God’s essential presence (whereby He is everywhere, upholding all things) and His manifest or gracious presence (whereby He makes His presence known in a special way for blessing or judgment, as in the tabernacle or in the person of Christ)19.
Dake’s “Omnibody” Fallacy
Dake explicitly rejects this understanding. For him, God’s body necessitates spatial limitation. In God’s Plan for Man, he writes: “He is not omnibody; that is, His body is not everywhere at the same time… Spirit-beings, including God Himself, cannot be omnipresent in body, for their bodies are of ordinary size and must be at one place at a time”1. He argues that God’s primary residence is a physical location, a “planet called Heaven,” from which He must travel1. His note on Genesis 18:22, where Abraham stands before the Lord while the two angels go toward Sodom, is a key “proof text” for this view: “This plainly teaches that God, as well as men and angels, is limited to one place as far as the body is concerned… In His body He goes from place to place like other persons”1. To account for scriptures that teach God’s presence is everywhere, Dake redefines omnipresence as a merely relational or influential presence, not an essential, spatial one. He compares it to how he can feel the presence of his wife and children even when they are hundreds of miles away: “They are here in spirit and presence… This presence is constant, though distance separates bodily at times”1. In Dake’s system, God is not essentially present everywhere; rather, those who have a relationship with Him can feel His presence, while His actual, physical body remains localized in heaven or is in transit between locations.
Biblical Rebuttal
Dake’s redefinition of omnipresence is a clear example of eisegesis—reading his own system into the text rather than drawing his theology from it. His interpretation cannot be reconciled with the plain meaning of the key biblical passages. Psalm 139 does not describe a mere feeling of God’s presence; it describes a spatial reality. David does not say, “Wherever I go, I can feel your presence.” He says, “If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!” The language is ontological, describing where God is, not just how a person feels. Dake’s analogy of feeling the presence of a distant family member completely fails to account for the force of this passage. Jeremiah 23:24 is even more explicit. God’s question, “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” is a statement about His essential being pervading all of creation. It is the basis for His omniscience (“Can a man hide himself… so that I cannot see him?”). God sees everything because He is everywhere. Dake’s localized, traveling God cannot “fill heaven and earth.” At best, he can occupy one small part of it at a time. Theophanies: Dake’s reliance on theophanies (visible appearances of God) like the one in Genesis 18 is a misinterpretation of their purpose27. These are instances of God’s manifest presence, where the infinite God condescends to reveal Himself in a localized, visible form for the purpose of communication with humanity. They do not define the limits of His essential being. To argue from a theophany that God’s essence is localized is like arguing that because the sun’s rays are focused by a magnifying glass into a single, hot point, the sun itself must be no larger than that point. It mistakes a localized manifestation of presence and power for the totality of that presence and power. Ultimately, Dake’s denial of omnipresence is a necessary consequence of his prior commitment to a corporeal God. It demonstrates how a single hermeneutical error can force a theologian to distort one clear biblical doctrine after another to maintain the logical consistency of his flawed system. The God of Finis Dake is not the infinite, transcendent Creator who fills all in all, but a magnified, non-physical man who is bound by the creation He is meant to transcend.
Section IV: A God Who Learns: Dake’s Denial of Divine Omniscience
The final and perhaps most pastorally devastating consequence of Dake’s theological system is his denial of God’s omniscience. If God is a localized being who must travel to observe events, it follows that His knowledge is not exhaustive or eternal. He must acquire new information, learn as events unfold, and cannot know the future with certainty, especially the free-will choices of His creatures. This teaching transforms the sovereign, all-knowing God of Scripture into a reactive, limited deity who is often surprised by His own creation.
The Orthodox Doctrine of Omniscience
The historic Christian doctrine of omniscience affirms that God possesses perfect, exhaustive, and eternal knowledge of all things. This knowledge is total and complete30. God knows everything—past, present, and future—including all actual and all possible events. His knowledge extends to the deepest secrets of the human heart and the future free choices of every moral agent31. Crucially, God’s knowledge is not acquired; it is not the result of observation or learning. It is intuitive and simultaneous33. He knows all things in a single, eternal act of knowing because He is the ultimate author and sustainer of all reality. This truth is foundational to the believer’s trust in God’s sovereignty, providence, and promises. Scripture is replete with testimony to God’s perfect knowledge:
1 John 3:20: “…God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.” This is a comprehensive statement of God’s total knowledge.
Psalm 139:1-4: This passage is a profound meditation on the personal and exhaustive nature of God’s knowledge: “O LORD, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you understand my thought from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.” God’s knowledge precedes human action and even thought23.
Isaiah 46:9-10: God distinguishes Himself from all false gods by His ability to know and declare the future: “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.'” God’s knowledge of the future is inseparable from His sovereign power to bring it to pass.
Acts 15:18: Quoting Amos 9:12, James affirms, “‘Known to God from eternity are all His works.'” God’s knowledge is not a developing process; it is an eternal and unchanging reality.
Dake’s Limited God: A Catalogue of Unorthodox Claims
In direct contradiction to this biblical witness, Finis Dake presents a God whose knowledge is partial, acquired, and uncertain. He redefines “omniscience” to mean something far less than “all-knowing,” stating in his Bible notes, “This must be understood in a limited sense”1. His writings contain a catalogue of claims that diminish this divine attribute.
God Learns and Acquires Knowledge: Dake repeatedly asserts that God comes to know things He did not previously know. In God’s Plan for Man, he writes, “God gets to know things concerning the free moral actions of men as others do”1. He interprets passages where God “sees” or “tests” humanity as literal fact-finding missions. His note on Genesis 18:21, where God says He will go down to see if Sodom’s sin is as great as the outcry, is a prime example: “Here we have another proof that God receives knowledge of true conditions and becomes acquainted with existing facts”1.
God Does Not Know the Future Free Actions of Men: The most significant limitation Dake places on God’s knowledge concerns the future. He argues that because man has free will, God cannot know his future choices. “We have no statement in the entire Bible saying that God knows or even would like to know all acts and particular events of all vast creations of free moral agents from all eternity past”1. “…concerning the free actions of free moral agents He does not know from all eternity what they will do before they are in existence… He does not know which ones will be saved and which ones will be lost”1. He explicitly states that God was surprised by major events in biblical history: “God did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked (Gen. 6:5–7); that they would plan Babel (Gen. 11:5–7); that Sodom would be so wicked (Gen. 18:21)… that Abraham would actually proceed to offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:12)”1.
God Uses Messengers to Gather Information: Because Dake’s God is localized and does not know all things, He must rely on a network of angelic messengers to run the universe. “God sends messengers throughout the Earth who report to Him of all that they find in the Earth that goes on… to find out for Him what He wants to know, the same as the head of any other business would be likely to do, so that plans may be made and actions taken accordingly”1. This reduces the omniscient Lord of all creation to a celestial executive who manages His creation via second-hand reports.
Biblical Rebuttal and Correct Interpretation of Dake’s “Proof Texts”
Dake’s case for a limited God rests on a hyper-literal and decontextualized reading of a handful of passages, while ignoring the overwhelming biblical testimony to the contrary. A faithful interpretation of these texts reveals that they do not limit God’s knowledge but rather reveal His character in relational, anthropopathic terms.
Genesis 6:6 (“The LORD was sorry… and he was grieved in his heart.”): Dake interprets this to mean God was surprised by the extent of human wickedness and regretted His decision to create man1. However, this is classic anthropopathic language, expressing God’s profound sorrow and righteous judgment over human sin in terms a human can understand. It does not imply a lack of foreknowledge. If God did not know this would happen, then His promise of a Savior in Genesis 3:15 would have been a blind guess, not a sovereign plan. The same God who grieves over sin in Genesis 6 is the God who declares the end from the beginning in Isaiah 46.
Genesis 18:21 (“I will go down to see…”): Dake reads this as a literal fact-finding mission1. The proper interpretation sees this as juridical language. God is acting as a righteous judge, publicly demonstrating the basis for His impending judgment. He is not gathering information for Himself, but revealing the justice of His actions to Abraham (and to all subsequent readers of Scripture). It is a condescension to human legal processes to show that His verdict is not arbitrary but is based on overwhelming evidence.
Genesis 22:12 (“…for now I know that you fear God…”): This is perhaps Dake’s most crucial “proof text”1. He insists it means God did not know what Abraham would do until that final moment. This interpretation, however, is deeply flawed.
- It Contradicts God’s Nature: It requires us to believe that God, who “knows the hearts of all the children of mankind” (1 Kings 8:39), did not know the state of Abraham’s heart, the man He called His friend (Isaiah 41:8)36.
- It Ignores Abraham’s Stated Faith: Before ascending the mountain, Abraham told his servants, “I and the lad will go over there and worship and come again to you” (Genesis 22:5). Hebrews 11:19 confirms that Abraham “considered that God was able to raise him even from the dead.” Abraham’s faith was not in question; it was being demonstrated. God knew Abraham’s heart; the test was to manifest that faith in history36.
- It Misunderstands “Knowing”: The language “now I know” is the language of experimental or demonstrated knowledge. It is spoken for Abraham’s benefit, not God’s. It is a divine confirmation of the reality of Abraham’s faith, now proven in action. God is affirming, “Now it has been publicly demonstrated that you fear Me.” It is not a confession of prior ignorance but an attestation to a present reality36.
Dake’s doctrine of a learning, limited God is built upon a misreading of a few anthropomorphic and anthropopathic texts while ignoring the vast witness of Scripture to God’s perfect, eternal, and exhaustive knowledge. His God is not the sovereign Lord of history but a finite being reacting to it—a view that has more in common with process theology or the gods of paganism than with the God of the Bible1.
Section V: Conclusion: The Dangers of a Diminished God
The theological system of Finis J. Dake, while presented as a simple, literal return to the Bible, is in fact a radical departure from historic Christian orthodoxy. As this report has demonstrated, his foundational hermeneutical error—a rigid and inconsistent hyper-literalism—logically compels him to dismantle the very nature of God as revealed in Scripture. The result is not the God of the Bible, but a diminished deity, reduced and remade in the image of man.
Summary of Dake’s Errors
The chain of error in Dake’s theology is clear and consequential.
- Flawed Hermeneutic: By rejecting the legitimacy of anthropomorphic and anthropopathic language, Dake forces a literal interpretation onto passages that were intended to be figurative, creating a God with a physical “spirit body.”
- Tritheism: This corporeal God is then multiplied by three, resulting in a fractured Godhead of three separate divine beings, each with its own body, soul, and spirit, united only in purpose. This is a direct contradiction of biblical monotheism.
- Denial of Omnipresence: A God with a localized body cannot be everywhere. Dake thus denies God’s omnipresence, teaching instead that God is confined to one place at a time and must travel through the cosmos.
- Denial of Omniscience: A localized, traveling God cannot know all things. Dake completes his portrait of a diminished deity by denying God’s omniscience, teaching that God learns, is often surprised by events, and does not know the future free-will actions of His creatures.
The stark contrast between Dake’s system and orthodox Christian doctrine is summarized in the table below.
| Theological Point | Historic Orthodox Doctrine | Finis J. Dake’s Doctrine |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of God | One infinite, eternal, and incorporeal Spirit (John 4:24). Anthropomorphic language is a divine accommodation to human understanding. | A being with a tangible, localized “spirit body” possessing physical parts (heart, hands, eyes, etc.), based on a hyper-literal reading of anthropomorphisms. |
| The Trinity | One God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), sharing one undivided divine essence. The Persons are distinct but the Substance is not divided. | Three separate and distinct divine Beings (Gods), each with their own individual body, soul, and spirit. Unity is merely one of purpose, not essence; a form of Tritheism. |
| Omnipresence | God’s whole and undivided essence is fully present at every point in space and time, yet He is not contained by it (Psalm 139:7-10). | God is not omnipresent in body. He is localized on a “planet called Heaven” and must travel from place to place to observe events (Genesis 18:22). |
| Omniscience | God possesses perfect, exhaustive, and eternal knowledge of all things—past, present, and future—including the free choices of moral agents (1 John 3:20). | God’s knowledge is limited and acquired. He learns new information, is surprised by events (Genesis 6:6), and does not know the future free actions of men. |
Theological and Pastoral Consequences
The teachings of Finis Dake are not a matter of harmless speculation; they have severe and damaging consequences for Christian faith and life. To worship Dake’s god is to worship a being fundamentally different from the God of Scripture.
- Compromised Sovereignty: A god who does not know the future cannot be sovereign over it. Prophecy becomes mere guesswork, and God’s eternal plan is reduced to a series of reactions to unforeseen events. The glorious doctrine of God’s providence, which assures the believer that all things work together for good, is rendered impossible.
- Undermined Trust: How can a believer place their absolute trust in the guidance of a god who is, as Dake teaches, learning as he goes? The comfort of knowing that our lives are held in the hands of a God who knows the end from the beginning is replaced by the anxiety of following a fallible, limited deity who may be just as surprised by tomorrow as we are39.
- Weakened Prayer and Comfort: The pastoral comfort derived from God’s attributes is immense. The assurance that God is always with us (omnipresence) and that He knows our needs, fears, and thoughts better than we do ourselves (omniscience) is a profound source of peace. Dake’s theology erodes this foundation, leaving the believer with a distant god who must be informed of our situation and who may or may not be bodily available to help.
- Distorted Gospel: Dake’s system also distorts the person of Jesus Christ. His teaching on kenosis—that Christ literally divested Himself of His divine attributes, including omniscience and omnipotence—diminishes the Son of God1. While orthodox theology affirms Christ’s voluntary non-use of certain divine prerogatives during His earthly ministry, it never suggests He ceased to be fully God. Dake’s view creates a being who was, for a time, something less than God, which has serious implications for the efficacy of His atoning work.
Final Exhortation
The enduring popularity of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible stands as a sober reminder of the need for theological discernment within the Church. While the Bible’s vast collection of cross-references may be useful, its theological notes are laced with dangerous and heretical teachings that present a diminished and distorted portrait of God. Believers must be equipped to distinguish between helpful study tools and unorthodox theological systems. The appeal of a “simple” and “literal” reading of the Bible must not become an excuse for abandoning the rich, nuanced, and creedal understanding of God that the Church has faithfully preserved for two millennia. We are called to worship the Triune God in spirit and in truth—the one, infinite, eternal, unchangeable, ever-present, and all-knowing God who has revealed Himself in the pages of Scripture. This God is infinitely greater, more glorious, and more worthy of our trust and adoration than the limited, localized, and learning deity of Finis J. Dake.
Works Cited
- Dake Bible Pages Merged.pdf
- Dake’s Dangerous Doctrine | Christian Research Institute, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.equip.org/articles/dakes-dangerous-doctrine/
- Finis Dake Theology – Dake Bible.com, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.dakebible.com/resources/finis-dake-theology
- AntiCALVIN God’s Plan For Man, accessed September 5, 2025, https://archive.org/download/AntiCALVINISTBooks/AnticalvinGodsPlanForMan-FinisJenningsDake.pdf
- Quotes by Finis Jennings Dake (Author of God’s Plan for Man) – Goodreads, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/4002088.Finis_Jennings_Dake
- Does God Have A Spirit Body? | Christian Research Institute, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.equip.org/articles/does-god-have-a-spirit-body/
- No “Mere” Anthropomorphism | Reformedish, accessed September 5, 2025, https://derekzrishmawy.com/2018/02/05/no-mere-anthropomorphism/
- Does God have a physical body? | GotQuestions.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/God-physical-body.html
- CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Anthropomorphism – New Advent, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01558c.htm
- Does God have a body like ours? | Catholic Answers Q&A, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-god-have-a-body-like-ours
- Help me understand the Trinity. Is it three separate beings making up one God, (God as an idea rather than a being)? Or is it one being, (God), who appears in three distinct forms? – The Christian Corner, accessed September 5, 2025, https://thechristiancorner.quora.com/Help-me-understand-the-Trinity-Is-it-three-separate-beings-making-up-one-God-God-as-an-idea-rather-than-a-being-Or
- Trinity – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
- God is the Three-in-One: Understanding the Trinity – Jean Wilund, Christian Writer/Speaker/Bible Teacher, accessed September 5, 2025, https://jeanwilund.com/god-is-the-three-in-one-understanding-the-trinity/
- The Trinity—Yesterday, Today and the Future – The Gospel Coalition, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-trinity-yesterday-today-and-the-future/
- Our Triune God: One in Substance and Three in Person – Apologetics Press, accessed September 5, 2025, https://apologeticspress.org/our-triune-god/
- Tritheism and Christian Faith – by Ralph Allan Smith – Berith.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.berith.org/essays/tritheism_and_christian_faith.html
- Tritheism and Christian Faith – Berith.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.berith.org/pdf/Tritheism_and_Christian_Faith.pdf
- The Omnipresent God – Reformed Forum, accessed September 5, 2025, https://reformedforum.org/the-omnipresent-god/
- The Omnipresence of God – Tabletalk Magazine, accessed September 5, 2025, https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/the-omnipresence-of-god-2020-08/
- In Awe of God’s Omnipresence (Part 1) | SHARPER IRON, accessed September 5, 2025, https://sharperiron.org/article/awe-of-gods-omnipresence-part-1
- Doctrine of God (Part 8): God’s Omnipresence | Defenders: 3 | Reasonable Faith, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-god-attributes-of-god/doctrine-of-god-part-8
- 10 Key Bible Verses on God’s Omnipresence – Crossway, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-key-bible-verses-on-gods-omnipresence/
- Psalm 139 by C. H. Spurgeon – Blue Letter Bible, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/spurgeon_charles/tod/ps139.cfm
- Jeremiah 23:24 Commentaries: “Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?” declares the LORD. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the LORD. – Bible Hub, accessed September 5, 2025, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jeremiah/23-24.htm
- Jeremiah 23 Study Bible, accessed September 5, 2025, https://biblehub.com/study/chapters/jeremiah/23.htm
- If God is omnipresent, then what is special about being in the presence of God? | GotQuestions.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/presence-omnipresence.html
- Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing | Logos Bible Software, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.logos.com/product/166100/theophany-a-biblical-theology-of-gods-appearing
- Darkness, Light, and the Lord: Elements of Israelite Theophanies – Religious Studies Center, accessed September 5, 2025, https://rsc.byu.edu/ascending-mountain-lord/darkness-light-lord-elements-israelite-theophanies
- Theophanies in the Old Testament – Answers in Genesis, accessed September 5, 2025, https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/incarnation/theophanies-in-the-old-testament/
- What does it mean that God is omniscient? | GotQuestions.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/God-omniscient.html
- Openness Theology and Divine Omniscience – The Gospel Coalition, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/openness-theology-divine-omniscience/
- What Does It Mean That God Is Omniscient? – Ways to Learn at Ligonier.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-that-god-is-omniscient
- The Omniscience of God – Sam Storms, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/the-omniscience-of-god/
- Psalm 139 Commentary – Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete), accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/psalms/139.html
- Psalm 139:1-6, 13-18 Commentary – Center for Excellence in Preaching, accessed September 5, 2025, https://cepreaching.org/commentary/2018-01-08/psalm-1391-6-13-18/
- Genesis 22:12, “For now I know that you fear God” | carm.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://carm.org/open-theism/genesis-2212-for-now-i-know-that-you-fear-god-and-open-theism/
- Genesis 22:12 – Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/genesis-22-12.html
- Genesis 22:12 Commentaries: He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” – Bible Hub, accessed September 5, 2025, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/22-12.htm
- Doctrine of God (Part 16): Practical Application of Divine Omniscience / God’s Omnipotence | Defenders: 3 | Reasonable Faith, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-god-attributes-of-god/doctrine-of-god-part-16
© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.
