Finis Dake’s Denial of God’s Omnipresence: A Comprehensive Biblical Refutation

Introduction: The Gravity of Dake’s Error

Among the many theological errors taught by Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987), perhaps none is more fundamental or dangerous than his outright denial of God’s omnipresence. This doctrine, which has been cherished and defended by orthodox Christianity for two thousand years, stands as a cornerstone of our understanding of God’s infinite nature. Yet Dake, in his attempt to make God more “understandable” to the human mind, reduced the Almighty to a being confined by space and location.

The implications of denying God’s omnipresence are staggering. If God is not everywhere present, then He cannot hear all prayers simultaneously. If He is confined to one location, then He cannot be with all His children at once. If He has a physical body limited by space, then He is not infinite, and if He is not infinite, He is not truly God. This article will thoroughly examine Dake’s teachings on this subject, demonstrate their error from Scripture, and show how orthodox Christianity has always affirmed God’s omnipresence as an essential attribute of His divine nature.

Part I: What Dake Actually Taught About God’s Omnipresence

Dake’s Core Teaching: God Has a Body

In his book “God’s Plan for Man,” Dake makes the startling claim that God the Father has a literal, physical body. On page 51, in the chapter titled “God is Omnipresent,” Dake ironically denies the very doctrine his chapter title proclaims. He writes:

This statement forms the foundation of Dake’s entire theological error. By insisting that God has a body “like” other beings, Dake immediately limits God to the constraints that all bodily beings experience. He continues in the same section:

Dake’s Explicit Denial of Omnipresence

Having established his belief that God has a physical body, Dake then draws the logical but heretical conclusion that God cannot be omnipresent. In perhaps his most shocking statement on this subject, Dake writes:

This statement reveals the full extent of Dake’s error. He explicitly states that God “cannot be omnipresent in body” and that God’s body “must be at one place at a time.” According to Dake, God moves “from place to place bodily as men do.” This reduces the infinite Creator to a finite being who must travel through space to be present in different locations.

Dake’s Concept of Limited Divine Presence

To try to maintain some semblance of orthodox teaching while denying God’s true omnipresence, Dake creates a distinction between God’s body and His “presence.” He argues that while God’s body is confined to one location, His “presence” can somehow be felt elsewhere. However, this creates more problems than it solves, as we shall see.

Dake attempts to explain this concept by comparing God to human beings who can have their “influence” or “presence” felt in places where their bodies are not physically located. But this analogy fails on multiple levels. Human “presence” in this sense is merely the effect of past actions or current communication—it is not true presence at all. When we say someone’s “presence is felt” though they are absent, we speak metaphorically. But Scripture speaks of God’s actual, real presence everywhere.

The Implications of Dake’s Teaching

The consequences of Dake’s denial of God’s omnipresence are severe and far-reaching:

1. God Cannot Hear All Prayers Simultaneously: If God has a body confined to one location, He cannot be personally present with every believer who prays. This contradicts numerous Scripture passages that assure us God hears all who call upon Him.

2. God Cannot See Everything: A localized God cannot have perfect knowledge of all events happening throughout the universe simultaneously. This denies God’s omniscience as well as His omnipresence.

3. God Cannot Be With All His Children: Jesus promised “I am with you always” (Matthew 28:20), but if Christ has a body limited to one location, this promise becomes meaningless for all believers except those in His immediate physical vicinity.

4. God Becomes Subject to Time and Space: By confining God to a body that must move from place to place, Dake makes God subject to the limitations of His creation rather than sovereign over it.

5. Prayer Becomes Uncertain: If God must travel to hear our prayers, we can never be certain He is listening at any given moment. This undermines the very foundation of prayer and our relationship with God.

Part II: The Biblical Doctrine of God’s Omnipresence

Clear Biblical Statements of God’s Omnipresence

The Bible consistently and clearly teaches that God is omnipresent—truly present everywhere at all times. This is not a presence of influence or effect, but His actual, personal presence. Consider these explicit biblical declarations:

Psalm 139:7-10 provides one of the clearest statements of God’s omnipresence in all of Scripture:

David does not say God’s “influence” is everywhere or that God can “travel” to these places. He declares that God IS there—already present in every location David might go. This is true omnipresence, not the limited presence Dake describes.

Jeremiah 23:23-24 explicitly refutes Dake’s notion of a localized God:

God Himself declares that He “fills heaven and earth.” This is not a filling of influence or awareness, but a filling of His actual presence. The Hebrew word “male” used here means to fill completely, to permeate entirely. God is not saying His influence fills heaven and earth while His body remains in one location—He is declaring His actual presence fills all of creation.

1 Kings 8:27 records Solomon’s profound understanding of God’s infinite nature:

Solomon understood that God cannot be contained—not even by the highest heavens. This directly contradicts Dake’s teaching that God has a body of “ordinary size” that must be in one place at a time. If God had such a body, then the heavens certainly could contain Him.

Acts 17:27-28 provides the New Testament affirmation of God’s omnipresence:

Paul declares that God is “not far from any one of us” and that “in him we live and move and have our being.” This is not possible if God has a localized body. We cannot all live and move and have our being “in” a God who is confined to one location.

The Biblical Teaching on God’s Spiritual Nature

One of Dake’s fundamental errors is his insistence that God has a physical body. However, Scripture explicitly teaches that God is spirit, not physical. This spiritual nature is essential to understanding His omnipresence.

John 4:24 contains Jesus’ own declaration about God’s nature:

Jesus does not say God “has” a spirit (as Dake claims), but that God IS spirit. The Greek construction here (pneuma ho theos) emphasizes God’s essential nature as spirit. This spiritual nature is precisely what enables God to be omnipresent—He is not confined by physical limitations.

Luke 24:39 provides Jesus’ own definition of what it means to be spirit:

Jesus explicitly states that a spirit “does not have flesh and bones.” Since God is spirit (John 4:24), God does not have flesh and bones—He does not have a physical body as Dake claims. This is fundamental to understanding God’s ability to be omnipresent.

1 Timothy 1:17 describes God as invisible:

If God had a physical body as Dake claims, He would not be invisible. Physical bodies, by definition, are visible or at least potentially visible. The Greek word “aoratos” used here means “unseen” or “not capable of being seen.” This describes God’s essential nature, not a temporary condition.

God’s Presence in Prayer and Worship

The Bible’s teaching on prayer and worship assumes and requires God’s omnipresence. Consider how prayer would work if Dake’s theology were correct:

Matthew 18:20 contains Jesus’ promise about His presence:

If Jesus has a physical body confined to one location, this promise is impossible to fulfill. Thousands of groups of believers gather simultaneously around the world. Jesus cannot be physically present with all of them if He has a body limited to one location. Yet He promises to be “there” with them—not to send His influence or to be aware of them from a distance, but to be actually present.

Psalm 145:18 assures us of God’s nearness to all who call upon Him:

Millions of believers call upon the Lord simultaneously from every corner of the earth. If God has a localized body, He cannot be “near to all” who call on Him. At best, He could only be near to those in His immediate physical vicinity.

Part III: The Historical Orthodox Position

The Early Church Fathers

From the earliest days of Christianity, the church has affirmed God’s omnipresence as an essential attribute of His divine nature. This was not a later theological development but was understood from the beginning as a necessary truth about God.

Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), writing in one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament, affirmed God’s omnipresence:

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 108 AD) wrote about God’s omnipresence in his letters to the early churches. He understood that God’s presence was not limited by space or location but that He was truly present with all believers everywhere.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) defended the Christian faith against pagan philosophy and explicitly taught God’s omnipresence. In his “Dialogue with Trypho,” he explained that God is not confined to any place but is present everywhere, seeing and knowing all things.

Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) wrote extensively against the Gnostic heresies of his day, many of which involved false teachings about God’s nature. He strongly affirmed God’s omnipresence, teaching that God contains all things while being contained by nothing:

The Great Theologians of Church History

Throughout church history, every major theologian and every orthodox creed has affirmed God’s omnipresence. This doctrine was never controversial among Bible-believing Christians until modern times when teachers like Dake began to compromise biblical truth.

Augustine (354-430 AD), perhaps the most influential theologian in church history after the apostles, wrote extensively about God’s omnipresence. In his “Confessions,” he beautifully expressed this truth:

Augustine understood that God is not distant from His creation but intimately present everywhere. He taught that God is “whole everywhere” (totus ubique), meaning God is not partially present in different places but fully present everywhere.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the great medieval theologian, provided philosophical precision to the doctrine of omnipresence. In his “Summa Theologica,” he explained:

The Protestant Reformation

The Protestant Reformers, while breaking with Rome on many issues, unanimously affirmed the orthodox doctrine of God’s omnipresence. This was never a point of controversy during the Reformation because all sides recognized it as essential biblical truth.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) strongly affirmed God’s omnipresence and criticized those who would limit God to a particular location. In his commentary on Genesis, he wrote:

John Calvin (1509-1564) devoted considerable attention to God’s attributes in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” Regarding omnipresence, he wrote:

The Reformed Confessions

The great confessions of faith that emerged from the Reformation all affirm God’s omnipresence as an essential attribute of His divine nature.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), one of the most influential Protestant confessions, states:

Notice the confession explicitly states that God is “without body” and “immense” (meaning not limited by space). This directly contradicts Dake’s teaching.

The London Baptist Confession (1689) uses nearly identical language, showing that Baptists historically have affirmed the same truth about God’s omnipresence.

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) teaches that Christ, according to His divine nature, is “never absent from us,” affirming the omnipresence of the Son of God.

Part IV: Theological Problems with Dake’s Position

The Problem of God’s Infinity

One of God’s essential attributes is His infinity—He is without limits or bounds. This attribute is closely related to His omnipresence. If God has a body of “ordinary size” as Dake claims, then God is not infinite. A being with a finite body cannot be infinite in His being.

The Bible clearly teaches God’s infinity. Psalm 147:5 declares, “Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.” The Hebrew word translated “no limit” means infinite or boundless. If God’s understanding is infinite, how can His being be finite?

1 Kings 8:27 asks, “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you.” If God has a body of ordinary size, why can’t the heavens contain Him? The obvious answer is that God is infinite and therefore cannot be contained by any finite space, no matter how large.

The Problem of God’s Immutability

If God has a body that moves from place to place as Dake claims, then God changes. Movement involves change—change of location, change of position, change of relationship to other objects in space. But the Bible clearly teaches that God does not change.

Malachi 3:6 declares, “I the Lord do not change.” James 1:17 teaches that with God there is “no variation or shadow due to change.” Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

A God who must travel from place to place is a God who changes. When He moves from location A to location B, He has changed. This contradicts the clear biblical teaching of God’s immutability.

The Problem of God’s Omniscience

Closely related to omnipresence is omniscience—God’s perfect knowledge of all things. If God is not present everywhere, how can He know everything that happens everywhere? Dake’s theology creates serious problems for the doctrine of God’s omniscience.

Hebrews 4:13 declares, “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” How can nothing be hidden from God’s sight if God’s sight is limited to one location?

Proverbs 15:3 states, “The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.” This verse explicitly states that God’s eyes are “everywhere”—not that God looks everywhere from one location, but that His eyes ARE everywhere.

The Problem of God’s Sovereignty

God’s sovereignty means He has absolute control over all creation. But if God has a localized body, His sovereignty is compromised. He cannot exercise immediate, direct control over events happening in locations where He is not present.

Ephesians 1:11 teaches that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” How can God work out “everything” if He is not present everywhere? Would He not be limited to working out only those things happening in His immediate vicinity?

Daniel 4:35 declares, “He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?'” This absolute sovereignty requires omnipresence. A God confined to one location cannot do as He pleases throughout all creation simultaneously.

Part V: Dake’s Misinterpretation of Biblical Anthropomorphisms

Understanding Anthropomorphic Language

One of Dake’s fundamental errors is his failure to properly understand anthropomorphic language in Scripture. Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to God to help us understand Him better. The Bible often speaks of God’s “eyes,” “hands,” “face,” etc., but these are metaphorical descriptions, not literal physical features.

Dake takes these anthropomorphisms literally and concludes that God must have a physical body. But this interpretation creates numerous contradictions and problems. Consider these biblical descriptions of God:

Psalm 91:4 says God has “feathers” and “wings.” If we take this literally as Dake takes other anthropomorphisms, God would be a bird.

Psalm 18:8 describes smoke coming from God’s nostrils and fire from His mouth. Taken literally, God would be a dragon.

Deuteronomy 33:27 mentions God’s “everlasting arms.” If these are literal physical arms, how can they be everlasting? Physical things are not eternal.

The Purpose of Anthropomorphic Language

God uses anthropomorphic language to communicate spiritual truths in terms we can understand. When the Bible speaks of God’s “eyes,” it refers to His omniscience. When it mentions His “hand,” it refers to His power and activity. When it describes His “face,” it refers to His presence and favor.

This interpretive principle has been understood by God’s people throughout history. The Jews, who received the Old Testament, never understood these descriptions to mean God has a physical body. They understood them as metaphorical descriptions of God’s attributes and actions.

Biblical Evidence Against Literal Interpretation

The Bible itself tells us not to take anthropomorphic language literally. Consider these clear statements:

Numbers 23:19: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.” This verse explicitly states that God is NOT human. If God has a body like humans as Dake claims, how can this verse be true?

Hosea 11:9: “I am God, and not a man—the Holy One among you.” God explicitly distinguishes Himself from human beings. He is NOT a man; He does not have a human-like body.

Isaiah 31:3: “But the Egyptians are mere mortals and not God; their horses are flesh and not spirit.” This verse creates a clear distinction between flesh (physical) and spirit. God is spirit, not flesh.

Part VI: The Incarnation and Omnipresence

Dake’s Confusion About Christ’s Two Natures

Dake’s theology creates particular problems when applied to Jesus Christ. According to orthodox Christian doctrine, Christ has two natures—divine and human—united in one person. In His divine nature, Christ is omnipresent; in His human nature, He has a physical body.

Dake, however, teaches that even in His divine nature, Christ has always had a body and therefore has never been omnipresent. This creates serious theological problems and contradicts clear biblical teaching.

Christ’s Omnipresence in Scripture

The Bible clearly teaches that Christ, in His divine nature, is omnipresent:

Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” This promise requires omnipresence. Christ cannot be with all gatherings of believers worldwide if He is confined to one location.

Matthew 28:20: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Christ promises to be with all His disciples always. This is impossible without omnipresence.

Ephesians 1:23 describes Christ as “him who fills everything in every way.” This is a clear statement of omnipresence. Christ fills everything—not partially, but “in every way.”

Colossians 3:11 declares that “Christ is all, and is in all.” This comprehensive statement affirms Christ’s omnipresence. He is not just aware of all or influential in all, but He “is in all.”

The Distinction Between Christ’s Natures

Orthodox theology has always maintained that while Christ’s human nature is localized (His human body is in one place), His divine nature remains omnipresent. This is the mystery of the incarnation—the infinite God took on finite human nature without ceasing to be infinite.

The Athanasian Creed, one of the great early statements of Christian faith, expresses this truth:

The Westminster Confession explains that Christ’s two natures are “distinct” but “inseparably joined together in one person.” The divine nature retains all its attributes, including omnipresence, while the human nature has the limitations of humanity.

Part VII: Practical Consequences of Denying Omnipresence

Impact on Prayer

If God is not omnipresent, prayer becomes problematic. Consider these practical problems that arise from Dake’s theology:

1. Uncertainty in Prayer: If God has a localized body, we can never be certain He is present to hear our prayers. He might be elsewhere, dealing with someone else’s concerns. This undermines the confidence believers should have in prayer.

2. Competition for God’s Attention: If God can only be in one place at a time, believers would essentially compete for His presence. Those in greater need or with more faith might draw God away from others. This creates an anxiety-inducing view of prayer.

3. Geographic Advantage: If God has a physical location, those closer to that location would have an advantage in prayer and worship. This would create a spiritual inequality based on geography.

4. Limited Access: Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father” and to come boldly to the throne of grace. But if God is not omnipresent, most believers would have very limited access to Him.

Impact on God’s Providence

The doctrine of God’s providence—His ongoing care and governance of creation—depends on His omnipresence. If God is not everywhere present, His providential care is severely limited.

Matthew 10:29-30 teaches that not even a sparrow falls to the ground outside the Father’s care, and that the very hairs of our heads are numbered. This detailed providential care requires omnipresence. A God confined to one location cannot simultaneously watch over every sparrow and count every hair on billions of human heads.

Psalm 139:13-16 describes God’s intimate involvement in our formation in the womb. If God is not omnipresent, He cannot be personally involved in the formation of every human being. This would reduce His role from active Creator to distant observer.

Impact on Salvation

The gospel message includes the promise that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13). But if God is not omnipresent, He cannot hear everyone who calls on Him. Multiple people accepting Christ simultaneously around the world would create an impossible situation for a God confined to one location.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit’s work in convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8) requires omnipresence. The Spirit cannot work in human hearts worldwide if He is confined to one location.

The new birth itself becomes problematic. Jesus said we must be “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5-8). If the Spirit is not omnipresent, He cannot be present to regenerate believers everywhere. This would mean salvation is only available to those in the Spirit’s immediate vicinity at any given time.

Impact on Christian Assurance

One of the great comforts of the Christian faith is knowing that God is always with us. This assurance is destroyed if God is not omnipresent.

Hebrews 13:5 quotes God’s promise: “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” This promise becomes meaningless if God has a localized body. He would have to leave some believers to be with others.

Romans 8:38-39 assures us that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. But if Christ is not omnipresent, physical distance would separate us from Him. Those far from His physical location would be separated from His immediate presence and love.

Psalm 23:4 comforts us with the promise, “Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.” If God is not omnipresent, He cannot be with all His people in their dark valleys. Some would have to face their trials alone.

Part VIII: Responding to Dake’s Arguments

Dake’s Appeal to Logic

Dake often argued that it is “logical” that God must have a body because all persons have bodies. He reasoned that since humans and angels have bodies, God must also have a body. This argument fails on multiple levels:

1. Category Error: God is not in the same category as created beings. He is the Creator, fundamentally different from His creation. To assume God must be like His creatures is a basic categorical error.

2. Limited Logic: Human logic is finite and fallen. We cannot use our limited reasoning to determine what God must be like. Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

3. Biblical Priority: Our understanding of God must come from His self-revelation in Scripture, not from human reasoning. When the Bible says God is spirit and is omnipresent, we must accept this revelation even if it challenges our limited logic.

Dake’s Misuse of “Image of God”

Dake argued that since humans are made in God’s image and humans have bodies, God must have a body. This argument misunderstands what “image of God” means in Scripture.

The image of God in humanity does not refer to physical appearance but to spiritual and moral qualities. Consider the evidence:

1. God is Spirit: John 4:24 explicitly states that God is spirit. If the image of God meant physical resemblance, this verse would be false.

2. The Image is Spiritual: Ephesians 4:24 describes the image of God as “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” These are spiritual, not physical qualities.

3. Christ is the Perfect Image: Colossians 1:15 calls Christ “the image of the invisible God.” Note that God is described as “invisible.” An invisible God does not have a visible body for us to physically resemble.

4. Renewed in Knowledge: Colossians 3:10 speaks of being “renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.” The image of God involves knowledge, not physical appearance.

Dake’s Confusion About Theophanies

Dake pointed to Old Testament theophanies (appearances of God) as proof that God has a body. He cited instances where people “saw” God or where God appeared in human form. However, this argument misunderstands the nature of theophanies.

Theophanies were temporary, accommodated appearances of God, not revelations of His essential nature. Consider these points:

1. Accommodation to Human Limitation: God appeared in forms humans could perceive and understand. This does not mean God essentially has these forms.

2. Various Forms: God appeared as fire (Exodus 3:2), cloud (Exodus 13:21), and storm (Job 38:1). If theophanies reveal God’s essential nature, which form is His real body?

3. No Man Has Seen God: John 1:18 explicitly states, “No one has ever seen God.” 1 Timothy 6:16 says God “lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.” If God has a visible body, these verses are false.

4. The Son Reveals the Father: John 1:18 continues, “but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” We see God truly revealed in Christ, not in temporary theophanies.

Part IX: The Trinity and Omnipresence

Dake’s Trinitarian Errors

Dake’s denial of omnipresence creates serious problems for the doctrine of the Trinity. He taught that each person of the Trinity has a separate body and therefore must be in separate locations. This essentially divides the Trinity into three separate Gods, which is tritheism, not biblical Trinitarianism.

Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine teaches that the three persons of the Trinity share one divine essence or nature. They are not three separate beings but one Being in three persons. The Westminster Confession states: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity.”

If each person of the Trinity has a separate body confined to a separate location, they cannot share one essence. They would be three separate beings, which is polytheism, not monotheism.

Biblical Evidence for Trinitarian Omnipresence

The Bible teaches that all three persons of the Trinity are omnipresent:

The Father’s Omnipresence: Jeremiah 23:24 – “Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?’ declares the Lord. ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord.”

The Son’s Omnipresence: Matthew 28:20 – “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Ephesians 4:10 – “He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.”

The Spirit’s Omnipresence: Psalm 139:7 – “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” 1 Corinthians 3:16 – “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?”

If all three persons are omnipresent, they cannot have separate physical bodies confined to separate locations. They must share the divine nature that transcends physical limitations.

The Unity of Divine Attributes

In orthodox theology, all three persons of the Trinity share all divine attributes fully. The Father is omnipresent, the Son is omnipresent, and the Spirit is omnipresent—not three omnipresences, but one omnipresence shared by three persons.

This is mysterious and beyond full human comprehension, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture. We must not reduce God to our level of understanding by denying His infinite attributes.

Part X: The Danger of Dake’s Teaching

Creating a False God

Perhaps the greatest danger of Dake’s teaching is that it presents a false god—a finite, limited being who is not the God of the Bible. This is not merely a minor theological error but a fundamental distortion of who God is.

The God Dake describes—with a body of ordinary size, confined to one location, moving from place to place—is not the infinite, omnipresent God revealed in Scripture. It is, in effect, an idol of human imagination.

Isaiah 40:18-25 asks, “With whom, then, will you compare God? To what image will you liken him?” The passage goes on to describe God’s incomparable greatness. To reduce God to a being with a physical body is to make Him comparable to His creation, which Isaiah condemns.

Undermining Faith

Dake’s teaching undermines faith in several ways:

1. Doubt in Prayer: If God is not omnipresent, believers cannot be confident He hears their prayers. This creates doubt and uncertainty in one of the most fundamental aspects of Christian life.

2. Questioning God’s Promises: Many of God’s promises assume His omnipresence. If He is not omnipresent, these promises become unreliable, undermining trust in God’s Word.

3. Limiting God’s Power: A God who is not omnipresent is not omnipotent. He cannot exercise power where He is not present. This diminishes faith in God’s ability to help and save.

4. Creating Anxiety: If God might not be present when we need Him, believers live in anxiety rather than peace. This contradicts the peace that should characterize Christian life.

Opening the Door to Further Error

Once we deny one of God’s essential attributes, we open the door to denying others. If God is not omnipresent, is He really omniscient? If He has a physical body, is He really eternal and unchangeable? Dake’s error regarding omnipresence leads logically to other serious theological errors.

This is not merely theoretical. Many who have followed Dake’s teaching have gone on to embrace other heresies, including the idea that God is continually learning and growing, that He doesn’t know the future exhaustively, and that He can make mistakes. These errors flow naturally from denying God’s infinite nature.

Part XI: The Biblical Response to Dake’s Teaching

Standing Firm on Scripture

Our response to Dake’s error must be firmly grounded in Scripture. We must not compromise biblical truth for the sake of making God more “understandable” or “relatable” to human thinking. The Bible, not human reason or experience, must be our final authority.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 warns: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

Dake’s teaching appeals to human reasoning and makes God more “understandable” by reducing Him to human categories. But this is exactly the kind of teaching Paul warns against—teaching that suits human desires rather than declaring biblical truth.

The Call to Orthodox Faith

Jude 3 exhorts us to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.” The doctrine of God’s omnipresence is part of this faith once delivered. It has been believed and taught by God’s people from the beginning. We must not abandon it now.

This doesn’t mean we understand everything about God’s omnipresence. It is a mystery how God can be fully present everywhere simultaneously. But we accept this mystery because it is clearly taught in Scripture. As Deuteronomy 29:29 reminds us, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever.”

The Importance of Sound Doctrine

Some might argue that this is merely a theological debate with no practical importance. But doctrine matters. What we believe about God affects how we relate to Him, how we pray, how we worship, and how we live.

1 Timothy 4:16 instructs: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” Paul links sound doctrine with salvation itself. False doctrine about God’s nature is not a trivial matter.

Titus 1:9 requires elders to “hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” Church leaders have a responsibility to refute false teaching like Dake’s denial of omnipresence.

Part XII: Pastoral Concerns and Applications

Ministering to Those Influenced by Dake

Many sincere Christians have been influenced by Dake’s teaching, often through his popular annotated Bible. These believers need patient, loving correction, not harsh condemnation. We must remember that they are often victims of false teaching rather than deliberate heretics.

When ministering to those influenced by Dake’s errors:

1. Begin with Scripture: Show them the clear biblical passages that teach God’s omnipresence. Let the Word of God do its work in their hearts.

2. Explain the Consequences: Help them understand the serious implications of denying God’s omnipresence. Show how it affects prayer, worship, and daily Christian living.

3. Address Their Concerns: Often, people are attracted to Dake’s teaching because it seems to make God more understandable. Address their legitimate desire to know God while showing that we must accept God as He reveals Himself, not as we imagine Him.

4. Provide Orthodox Resources: Recommend sound theological works that properly explain God’s attributes. The historic confessions and catechisms can be particularly helpful.

5. Be Patient: It can be difficult for people to abandon beliefs they’ve held for years. Be patient and continue to speak the truth in love.

Protecting the Flock

Church leaders have a responsibility to protect their congregations from false teaching. This includes:

1. Teaching Sound Doctrine: Regularly teach about God’s attributes, including His omnipresence. Don’t assume people understand these fundamental truths.

2. Warning About Error: When appropriate, warn about specific false teachings that threaten the church. This should be done graciously but clearly.

3. Screening Resources: Be aware of what books and study materials your congregation is using. Dake’s annotated Bible is still popular in some circles.

4. Training Leaders: Ensure that all teachers and leaders in your church understand and can defend orthodox doctrine about God’s nature.

The Positive Proclamation of Truth

While we must refute error, we should focus primarily on positively proclaiming truth. The doctrine of God’s omnipresence is not just a theological concept but a precious truth that brings comfort and strength to believers.

Preach and teach about:

1. God’s Constant Presence: Believers are never alone. God is always with us, in every circumstance, at every moment.

2. The Accessibility of Prayer: Because God is omnipresent, He is always available to hear our prayers. We don’t need to wait for Him to arrive or worry that He’s too busy elsewhere.

3. God’s Perfect Knowledge: Because God is present everywhere, He sees and knows everything. Nothing escapes His notice; no cry for help goes unheard.

4. Divine Protection: God’s omnipresence means He is always present to protect and deliver His people. We are never outside His protective care.

5. Accountability: God’s omnipresence also means we are always accountable to Him. This should motivate holy living and sincere worship.

Part XIII: Historical Heresies Related to Omnipresence

Ancient Heresies

Dake’s denial of omnipresence is not new. Throughout church history, various groups have made similar errors, and the church has consistently rejected them.

The Anthropomorphites: In the early church, a group called the Anthropomorphites insisted that God has a human form because Genesis says man was made in God’s image. They were condemned by the church for the same reasons we must reject Dake’s teaching.

The Audians: A fourth-century sect founded by Audius also taught that God has a physical body. They were rejected as heretical by the orthodox church.

Gnosticism: Various Gnostic groups taught that the supreme God was too transcendent to be involved with the physical world, effectively denying His omnipresence. The early church vigorously opposed these teachings.

Medieval and Reformation Era Errors

During the medieval period, some groups arose that limited God’s presence to specific locations, usually connected with sacred sites or relics. The Reformers strongly opposed these ideas, insisting on God’s omnipresence.

The Socinians in the 16th century denied several orthodox doctrines, including aspects of God’s omnipresence. They were universally condemned by Protestant churches.

Modern Departures

In modern times, several movements have compromised the doctrine of omnipresence:

Mormonism: The Mormon church teaches that God the Father has a physical body of flesh and bones, explicitly denying His omnipresence. This is one of many reasons Mormonism is not considered Christian by orthodox churches.

Process Theology: This modern theological movement limits God’s knowledge and presence, suggesting God is evolving and learning along with creation.

Open Theism: While not explicitly denying omnipresence, Open Theism’s denial of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge implies limitations on His presence and awareness.

Dake’s teaching aligns more closely with these heretical movements than with orthodox Christianity. This should be a serious warning to those who follow his teaching.

Part XIV: The Sufficiency of Scripture

Scripture Alone as Our Authority

One of the fundamental problems with Dake’s approach is that he allowed human reasoning to override clear biblical teaching. When the Bible says God is omnipresent, we must accept this truth even if we cannot fully comprehend it.

The Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) means that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. We don’t interpret Scripture through the lens of human logic; we interpret human experience through the lens of Scripture.

2 Peter 1:19-21 reminds us that Scripture comes from God, not human invention: “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

The Clarity of Scripture on Omnipresence

The doctrine of omnipresence is not hidden in obscure passages or dependent on complex theological arguments. It is clearly and repeatedly stated throughout Scripture. Consider how plainly these verses speak:

“Am I only a God nearby… and not a God far away?” (Jeremiah 23:23)

“Where can I go from your Spirit?” (Psalm 139:7)

“God is spirit” (John 4:24)

“In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)

These are not ambiguous statements requiring elaborate interpretation. They clearly teach that God is spirit, not physical, and that He is present everywhere. To deny this is to deny the plain teaching of Scripture.

The Danger of Adding to Scripture

Dake’s elaborate system of teaching about God’s body, its size, and its limitations goes far beyond what Scripture teaches. He adds details and specifications that the Bible never provides. This violates the principle stated in Deuteronomy 4:2: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.”

Proverbs 30:5-6 warns: “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”

When we start specifying things about God that Scripture doesn’t specify—like the size and nature of a supposed divine body—we are adding to God’s Word. This is dangerous ground.

Part XV: The Beauty of God’s Omnipresence

Comfort in Trials

The doctrine of God’s omnipresence is not merely an abstract theological concept—it is a source of immense comfort and strength for believers. When we understand that God is truly present with us always, it transforms how we face life’s challenges.

Consider the comfort David found in God’s omnipresence in Psalm 139. He was overwhelmed by the thought that he could never be separated from God’s presence. Whether in the heights or depths, in light or darkness, God was there. This wasn’t a source of fear but of great comfort.

When we go through valleys of suffering, we can know that God is not distant, watching from afar. He is right there with us, closer than our very breath. As Psalm 34:18 promises, “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.”

Power in Service

God’s omnipresence empowers Christian service. When Jesus gave the Great Commission, He coupled it with the promise of His presence: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Missionaries in remote locations, pastors in difficult situations, and Christians witnessing in hostile environments can all take courage from God’s omnipresence. They are never alone in their service. God is with them, empowering and protecting them.

This truth has sustained countless believers through persecution and martyrdom. They knew that even in prison cells and execution grounds, God was present with them. No earthly power could separate them from His presence.

Intimacy in Worship

Understanding God’s omnipresence transforms worship. We don’t have to go to a special place to meet with God—He is already present wherever we are. Jesus taught this to the woman at the well: “A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem… the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:21-23).

Every place becomes a potential sanctuary because God is present everywhere. Our homes, workplaces, and daily routines can all become places of worship when we recognize God’s presence.

This doesn’t diminish the importance of corporate worship but enhances it. When believers gather, they don’t summon God to their location—they celebrate the presence of One who is already there and always has been.

Holiness in Living

God’s omnipresence is also a motivation for holy living. Knowing that God sees all and is present everywhere should inspire us to live lives that please Him. As Proverbs 15:3 states, “The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.”

This is not meant to create paranoid fear but healthy reverence. We live our lives coram Deo—before the face of God. Every thought, word, and deed takes place in His presence. This awareness should purify our motivations and actions.

Conclusion: Standing for Truth in an Age of Error

Finis Dake’s denial of God’s omnipresence represents a serious departure from biblical truth and orthodox Christian faith. By teaching that God has a physical body confined to one location, Dake has reduced the infinite Creator to a finite creature, compromising numerous essential doctrines and undermining the faith of many.

We have seen that:

As Bible-believing Christians, we must reject Dake’s error and hold fast to the biblical doctrine of God’s omnipresence. This is not a secondary issue but touches the very nature of God Himself. We cannot compromise on such fundamental truth.

At the same time, we must respond with grace and patience to those who have been misled by Dake’s teaching. Many sincere believers have been confused by his errors. They need loving correction and sound biblical teaching, not harsh condemnation.

The doctrine of God’s omnipresence is not just theological precision—it is practical truth that affects every aspect of Christian life. It assures us that God hears our prayers, that He is present in our trials, that He empowers our service, and that He is worthy of our worship wherever we are.

Let us therefore hold firmly to this precious truth. Let us teach it clearly to the next generation. Let us live in the confidence that our God is not confined to a throne room in heaven but is truly present with us always. As Moses declared to Israel, so we can declare today: “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7).

May we never exchange the God who fills heaven and earth for a deity of human imagination. May we never trade the omnipresent Lord for a localized limitation. And may we always rejoice in the truth that wherever we go, whatever we face, our God is there—not in sentiment or influence, but in actual, personal, powerful presence.

To Him who is present everywhere, who sees all, knows all, and sustains all, be glory and honor forever. Amen.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.