Throughout the centuries of Christian history, the church has faced numerous challenges to orthodox teaching about God’s nature. In response to these challenges, believers have formulated creeds—concise statements of essential Christian doctrine that serve as boundaries marking off biblical faith from heretical deviation. These creeds, hammered out through intense theological reflection, prayer, and often fierce debate, represent not the invention of new doctrines but the crystallization of what Scripture teaches about who God is and how He relates to His creation. When we examine these historic statements alongside Finis Dake’s teachings, the contrast is stark and undeniable: what the church has universally affirmed as essential truth, Dake explicitly denies; what believers have died to defend, he casually dismisses; what Scripture clearly teaches about God’s nature, he radically reinterprets through his hyperliteral lens.
For primary sources, see: Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877); J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (London: Continuum, 1972); Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).
The Foundation: Why Creeds Matter
Before examining specific creeds and their teachings about God’s nature, we must understand why these documents matter and how they function in the life of the church. Dake and his followers often dismiss creeds as mere human tradition, preferring to claim they follow “the Bible alone.” This sounds spiritual, but it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how divine truth is preserved and transmitted through history. The creeds don’t add to Scripture; they summarize and safeguard what Scripture teaches, providing guardrails that prevent believers from driving off the cliff of heresy.
The Biblical Basis for Creeds
Scripture itself contains numerous creedal statements—concise summaries of essential truth that believers were expected to affirm and confess. Consider these examples:
Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (The Shema): “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”
This foundational confession of Israel’s faith declares the absolute unity of God—the very truth Dake’s teaching of three separate Gods explicitly denies. When Dake claims in his note on this verse that “one” means “one in unity, not in number,” he stands against the entire witness of Jewish and Christian interpretation.
The New Testament continues this pattern of creedal confession. First Corinthians 15:3-4 presents what many scholars consider the earliest Christian creed: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” Paul didn’t invent this formula; he received it and passed it on—exactly what creeds do.
First Timothy 3:16 provides another early creedal statement: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Notice how this assumes God’s incorporeal nature—the manifestation in flesh is presented as an extraordinary mystery, not God’s normal state. If God already had a body, as Dake teaches, what would be mysterious about appearing in flesh?
The Historical Necessity of Creeds
The church didn’t develop creeds out of a love for philosophical speculation but out of pastoral necessity. When false teachers arose claiming biblical support for their heresies, the church needed clear statements distinguishing truth from error. This pattern began in the apostolic era itself. John warns against those who deny “that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2-3), providing a doctrinal test for distinguishing true from false spirits.
The process intensified in the post-apostolic period as the church faced challenges from:
- Gnosticism: Teaching that the material world was evil and that Christ only appeared to have a body
- Arianism: Claiming that Christ was a created being, not eternal God
- Modalism: Asserting that Father, Son, and Spirit were merely modes or masks of one person
- Tritheism: Teaching three separate Gods—exactly what Dake advocates
- Anthropomorphism: Claiming God has a physical body—precisely Dake’s position
Each heresy forced the church to articulate more precisely what Scripture teaches. The resulting creeds represent the collective wisdom of centuries of biblical interpretation, tested through controversy and refined through debate.
Dake’s Rejection of Church Authority
In his writings, Dake repeatedly dismisses church tradition and historical theology. In God’s Plan for Man, page 5, he writes: “We must not accept what men say about the Bible, but what the Bible itself says.” This sounds noble, but it’s deeply problematic. Dake sets himself up as the sole arbiter of biblical interpretation, dismissing two millennia of Spirit-guided understanding. He implies that he alone has discovered the Bible’s true meaning while the entire church has been wrong for twenty centuries. This is not humility but hubris of the highest order.
The Apostles’ Creed: The Foundation of Faith
While not written by the apostles themselves, the Apostles’ Creed represents the earliest summary of apostolic teaching, with roots extending back to the second century. Its simple yet profound statements about God establish foundational truths that Dake’s theology undermines at every turn.
The Text and Its Significance
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.
How This Creed Refutes Dake’s Errors
1. “God, the Father Almighty”
The creed begins by affirming God as “Almighty” (Greek: pantokrator, ruler of all). This term implies omnipotence—unlimited power over all creation. But how can God be almighty if He has a body confined to one location, as Dake teaches? A bodied god cannot be everywhere at once to exercise universal dominion. Dake tries to solve this by claiming God rules through the Holy Spirit, but this makes the Father’s power derivative and indirect. The creed’s language assumes what Scripture teaches: God is spirit, unlimited by spatial constraints, able to exercise immediate power everywhere simultaneously.
Dake writes in his note on Genesis 1:1: “God lives in a certain place in the heaven of heavens, has a throne, sits upon it, and rules the universe from that throne.” This transforms the Almighty God into a cosmic administrator, managing creation from a distant headquarters rather than being immediately present to all His works.
2. “Maker of heaven and earth”
God as Creator of all things visible and invisible necessarily exists outside and before creation. But if God has a body, as Dake insists, where did this body exist before space was created? Dake’s god needs pre-existing space for his body, making him dependent on something outside himself. The creed’s affirmation assumes creation ex nihilo—from nothing—which requires a God who transcends physical categories.
3. “His only Son, our Lord”
The relationship between Father and Son in the creed assumes unity of essence with distinction of persons. But Dake explicitly teaches three separate beings. In God’s Plan for Man, page 51, he states: “The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit… They are three separate persons with three separate and distinct personal bodies, personal souls, and personal spirits.” This isn’t the creed’s Trinitarian monotheism but frank tritheism.
4. “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary”
The miraculous conception emphasizes the extraordinariness of God taking human nature. But if God already has a body, what’s miraculous about the incarnation? Dake’s theology reduces this central Christian mystery to one bodied being taking another body—hardly the astonishing condescension the creed celebrates.
The Nicene Creed: Defining Divine Nature
The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and expanded at Constantinople (381 AD), represents the church’s definitive statement on the nature of God and the Trinity. Born from the Arian controversy, which denied Christ’s full deity, this creed established boundaries that exclude not only Arianism but also the tritheism and corporalism Dake advocates.
The Text in Full
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end;
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And we believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Key Phrases That Condemn Dake’s Theology
1. “We believe in ONE God”
The creed begins with absolute monotheism—one God, not three. The Greek term heis means numerically one, despite Dake’s attempts to redefine “one” as merely unified in purpose. The Nicene fathers were explicit: Christianity is monotheistic, worshipping one divine essence, not three separate beings working together.
Compare this to Dake’s shocking statement from his note on 1 John 5:7-8: “There are THREE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PERSONS… let this fact be settled once and forever. All Scripture will harmonize with this idea, but many scores of Scriptures cannot possibly be harmonized with the idea of God being only ONE PERSON or ONE PERSON MADE UP OF THREE PERSONS.”
Historical Note: The specific language “one God” was chosen to exclude both polytheism (many gods) and tritheism (three gods). The council fathers would have immediately recognized Dake’s teaching as the very error they were combating. When Athanasius fought for this language, he was fighting against exactly the kind of theology Dake promotes.
2. “Light of Light, very God of very God”
This metaphysical language deliberately avoids physical categories. Light is used as an analogy for divine generation precisely because it doesn’t imply physical separation or division. One light can kindle another without diminishment or spatial separation. The fathers chose this language carefully to exclude any notion of God having a body or the persons being physically separate.
Dake cannot make sense of this language. If the Father and Son have separate bodies, as he teaches, they cannot be “Light of Light.” Physical bodies are necessarily separate and distinct. The creed’s language assumes and requires incorporeality.
3. “Being of one substance with the Father” (homoousios)
This crucial term—homoousios—was the centerpiece of Nicene orthodoxy. Father and Son share the same divine essence or substance. They are not similar (homoiousios) but identical in essence. This makes tritheism impossible. Three beings with separate bodies cannot share one essence; they would necessarily have three essences.
Dake explicitly rejects this in God’s Plan for Man, page 55: “Each person of the Godhead has His own personal and distinct body, soul, and spirit, and therefore, His own distinct personal substance.” This directly contradicts the Nicene confession. Dake isn’t offering a different interpretation of the Trinity; he’s rejecting it entirely.
4. “Came down from heaven, and was incarnate”
The creed presents the incarnation as a “coming down” and becoming flesh. This assumes the Son’s pre-incarnate state was non-corporeal. If He already had a body in heaven, the language makes no sense. He would simply be exchanging one body for another, not becoming incarnate (literally, “enfleshment”).
The Council’s Explicit Condemnations
The Council of Nicaea didn’t merely affirm truth; it explicitly condemned errors. The original creed included anathemas (formal condemnations) that directly apply to Dake’s theology:
The Nicene Anathemas:
“But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.”
While these anathemas primarily targeted Arianism, the phrase “of another substance or essence” equally condemns Dake’s teaching that each person has “His own distinct personal substance.” The church declared: same substance, not different substances. One essence, not three. This isn’t a minor theological nuance but the definitional boundary of Christian orthodoxy.
The Athanasian Creed: Precision Against Error
The Athanasian Creed, though not written by Athanasius himself, represents the mature reflection of the church on Trinitarian doctrine. Dating from the fifth or sixth century, it provides the most detailed creedal statement on the Trinity, with language so precise it leaves no room for Dake’s errors.
Key Sections of the Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
Direct Refutation of Dake’s Positions
1. “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity”
This masterful phrase encapsulates orthodox Trinitarian theology. One God—not three. Trinity—not modalism. Unity—not mere cooperation. The creed explicitly states what Dake denies: numerical oneness of God while maintaining personal distinctions.
Dake cannot affirm this statement. His theology requires changing it to: “We worship three Gods in cooperation, and cooperation in separation.” His three beings with three bodies cannot constitute “one God” in any meaningful sense.
2. “Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance”
This phrase directly condemns Dake’s error. He divides the substance by giving each person “His own distinct personal substance.” The creed says the opposite: the substance cannot be divided. One divine essence shared completely by three persons, not three essences possessed by three beings.
A Teaching Moment
Imagine three humans—Peter, James, and John. They share human nature but have three separate human essences or substances. They are three beings, not one. This is exactly what Dake teaches about the Trinity—three divine beings sharing divine nature but having separate divine substances. The Athanasian Creed explicitly rejects this analogy. The Trinity is not three divine beings but one divine being in three persons.
3. “The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible”
The term “incomprehensible” (Latin: immensus) means “not able to be measured or contained.” This necessarily excludes having a body, which by definition has measurements and boundaries. Dake’s god with “shape, image, likeness, bodily parts” is precisely comprehensible—able to be measured, contained, located.
4. “And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal”
This grammatically awkward but theologically precise phrase emphasizes that despite the threeness of persons, there is only oneness of divine attributes. Not three omnipotent beings but one omnipotent God. Not three omniscient beings but one omniscient God. Not three uncreated beings but one uncreated God.
Dake explicitly teaches the opposite. In his system, there are three omnipotent beings, three omniscient beings, three eternal beings. He has to, because he has three separate Gods. The creed’s insistence on “one eternal” makes no sense in Dake’s theology.
The Creed’s Solemn Warning
The Athanasian Creed begins and ends with sobering warnings about the necessity of holding the correct faith about God’s nature:
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly… This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.”
While we might debate the precise meaning of these warnings, their seriousness is undeniable. The church fathers didn’t consider the Trinity an optional or secondary doctrine but essential to salvation. Why? Because to worship a false god is idolatry, and idolaters cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Dake’s three gods with bodies are not the one God of biblical revelation.
The Chalcedonian Definition: Protecting the Incarnation
The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) focused primarily on Christology—the doctrine of Christ’s person—but its definitions assume and require an incorporeal God. The Chalcedonian Definition provides crucial insights into how the church understood the relationship between divine and human natures.
The Chalcedonian Statement
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.
Implications for Divine Incorporeality
1. “Perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood”
The distinction between Godhead and manhood assumes they are different categories. Godhead is incorporeal; manhood is corporeal. If Godhead already included having a body, this distinction would be meaningless. Christ wouldn’t be adding human nature to divine nature but simply exchanging one kind of body for another.
2. “Truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body”
Notice that “body” is mentioned only in connection with manhood, not Godhead. The human nature consists of soul and body. The divine nature is not described in these terms. This is consistent throughout all orthodox Christology: body pertains to humanity, not deity.
3. “In all things like unto us, without sin”
Christ became like us by taking human nature. But if God already has a body, Christ was already like us before the incarnation. The wonder of the incarnation—God becoming what He was not—disappears in Dake’s system.
The Fourth Lateran Council: Medieval Precision
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) provided one of the most philosophically precise statements about God’s nature, explicitly addressing the issue of divine corporeality that Dake’s theology raises.
The Council’s Declaration
From the Fourth Lateran Council:
“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature. The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal.”
Key Phrases That Exclude Dake’s Theology
1. “One absolutely simple essence”
Divine simplicity means God has no parts or composition. A body necessarily has parts—head, hands, feet, as Dake explicitly claims for God. The council’s affirmation of absolute simplicity categorically excludes any possibility of God having a body. You cannot have an absolutely simple essence with a complex body.
Dake must reject divine simplicity, and he does. His god is not simple but complex, composed of body, soul, and spirit, with multiple physical parts. This isn’t a minor adjustment but a complete overthrow of classical theism.
2. “Creator of all things… spiritual and corporeal”
God creates both spiritual and corporeal (bodily) reality. He therefore cannot be corporeal Himself, or He would be creating His own category of being. The Creator transcends the creation categories. Dake’s bodied god would be creating other bodied beings, making him simply the most powerful within a category rather than the transcendent Creator of all categories.
3. “Incomprehensible and ineffable”
These terms emphasize God’s transcendence of human categories and understanding. A god with a body like ours, differing only in degree, is neither incomprehensible nor ineffable. We can comprehend bodies; we can describe physical forms. Dake’s god is entirely effable—he describes God’s body parts in detail!
The Protestant Confessions: Reformation Clarity
The Protestant Reformation, while challenging Rome on many issues, completely agreed with catholic orthodoxy regarding God’s nature. The major Protestant confessions explicitly affirm divine incorporeality and condemn the errors Dake teaches.
The Augsburg Confession (1530)
The Lutheran statement of faith declares:
“There is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”
Notice the explicit phrase “without body, without parts.” The Lutheran reformers felt it necessary to explicitly exclude any notion of divine corporeality. They understood that a God with body and parts cannot be infinite, eternal, or truly God. Dake’s theology stands condemned by this foundational Protestant confession.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
The Presbyterian and Reformed churches affirm:
“There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.”
This comprehensive statement leaves no room for Dake’s corporealism:
- “A most pure spirit” – Not a physical being
- “Invisible” – Not able to be seen with physical eyes
- “Without body” – Explicitly denying what Dake affirms
- “Without parts” – No hands, feet, eyes, or other members
- “Without passions” – Not subject to emotional changes like embodied beings
- “Immense” – Not limited by spatial boundaries
Dake’s Direct Contradiction
Compare the Westminster Confession with Dake’s teaching from his note on Genesis 1:26: “God has a personal spirit body… shape, image, likeness, bodily parts such as, back parts, heart, hands and fingers, mouth, lips, tongue, feet, eyes, hair, head, face, arms, loins, and other bodily parts.”
The contrast couldn’t be more absolute. Westminster: “without body, parts.” Dake: “personal spirit body… bodily parts.” One of these positions is Christian orthodoxy; the other is heresy.
The Baptist Faith and Message
Even Baptist confessions, typically less detailed than Presbyterian ones, affirm God’s incorporeal nature:
“The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being… God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future.”
While less explicit about corporeality, the confession affirms God’s infinity and omniscience in ways incompatible with having a body. An infinite God cannot have finite bodily boundaries. An all-knowing God cannot be limited to knowing only what He can observe from a particular location.
The Church Fathers: Unanimous Witness
Beyond the formal creeds, the church fathers provide unanimous testimony against divine corporeality. Their writings show that Dake’s position was recognized and rejected as heresy from the earliest centuries.
The Apostolic Fathers
Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 108 AD) wrote in his Epistle to the Magnesians: “God is not corporeal, but spirit. He is not limited to place, but is everywhere present.” This early testimony, from someone who likely knew the apostles personally, establishes that incorporeality was assumed from the beginning.
The Epistle to Diognetus (c. 130 AD) states: “God, the Lord and Creator of all things, who made all things and arranged them in order, was not only kind to humans but also patient. Indeed, he always was and is and will be kind and good and free from anger and true, and he alone is good. He is invisible to human eyes and incomprehensible to human thought.”
The Ante-Nicene Fathers
Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD), fighting against Gnostic errors, nevertheless affirmed God’s incorporeality:
“God is not as men are; and His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like and equal to Himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good.” (Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 13)
Notice how Irenaeus emphasizes God’s simplicity and lack of “diverse members”—exactly what Dake denies with his detailed list of God’s body parts.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD) wrote extensively against anthropomorphism:
“God is beyond all place and time and nature. He is not contained but contains all things. He has no shape or form that can be perceived by human senses. When Scripture speaks of God’s eyes or hands, it speaks metaphorically, accommodating divine truth to human understanding.” (Stromata, Book V, Chapter 11)
Origen (c. 185-254 AD) provided systematic refutation of divine corporeality:
“God is not a body, nor is He in a body… For how could He be a body, who is said to be invisible? And how could He be in a body, He who fills heaven and earth? A body must necessarily be in a place and occupy space. But God is present everywhere and fills all things. Therefore, God is not a body.” (De Principiis, Book I, Chapter 1)
This logical argument remains powerful: bodies are necessarily limited to location, but God is omnipresent, therefore God cannot have a body. Dake tries to escape this by claiming God is omnipresent only through the Holy Spirit, but this divides the Trinity and makes the Father less than fully God.
Tertullian (c. 155-240 AD), despite using some corporeal language, ultimately affirmed God’s transcendence of physical categories:
“God is a Spirit, not having human form or human members, although Scripture speaks of His eyes, ears, hands, and feet. These are to be understood in a manner worthy of God, as indicating His powers rather than His parts.” (Against Praxeas, Chapter 7)
The Post-Nicene Fathers
Athanasius (c. 296-373 AD), the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy, explicitly refuted anthropomorphite monks who taught God has a body:
“They have imagined for themselves a God made in the likeness of man, with human parts and passions. But the true God is incorporeal, invisible, intangible, without parts, without passions, unchangeable. He is pure spirit, transcending all material categories. When Scripture uses anthropomorphic language, it condescends to our weakness, speaking of spiritual realities in terms we can grasp.” (Letter to Serapion)
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390 AD), one of the Cappadocian Fathers, provided sophisticated theological arguments:
“If God has a body, He is either infinite or finite. If infinite, how can a body be infinite? For every body has boundaries and limits. If finite, He is not God, for God must be infinite. Therefore, God has no body.” (Theological Orations, Oration 28)
John Chrysostom (c. 349-407 AD) preached clearly against anthropomorphism:
“When you hear of God’s hands, do not think of limbs composed of bones and flesh. The hand of God is His power. When you hear of God’s eyes, do not think of bodily organs, but of His all-seeing knowledge. When you hear of God’s ears, do not imagine organs of hearing, but understand His readiness to hear our prayers.” (Homilies on Genesis)
Augustine (354-430 AD), the most influential Western father, wrote extensively on God’s incorporeality:
“God is not contained in any place. He does not have one part here and another there. He is not partly in heaven and partly on earth. He is everywhere present in His entirety. He is not a body that occupies space. He is spirit, and spirit has no spatial dimensions. Those who imagine God with a body blaspheme against His infinite majesty.” (City of God, Book VIII, Chapter 6)
Augustine specifically addressed those who, like Dake, interpreted Genesis 1:26 to mean God has a physical form:
“The image of God in man is not bodily likeness but rational soul, free will, and capacity for knowing and loving God. To think God has a body because we are made in His image is to reduce the Creator to the level of the creature.” (On the Trinity, Book XII)
Medieval Theologians: Philosophical Precision
The medieval period saw increased philosophical sophistication in theology, but the conclusion remained unchanged: God cannot have a body.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)
Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence assumes incorporeality:
“God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But a being with a body is less perfect than one without, for a body implies limitation, change, and dependence. Therefore, God, being the greatest conceivable being, cannot have a body.” (Proslogion)
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Aquinas provided the most systematic philosophical treatment of divine incorporeality:
From the Summa Theologica (Part I, Question 3):
- God is not a body because every body is moved by another. But God is the unmoved mover, therefore not a body.
- God is pure actuality with no potentiality. But every body has potential for change, therefore God has no body.
- God is the most noble being. But spirit is nobler than body, therefore God is spirit, not body.
- God is absolutely simple. But every body has parts, therefore God has no body.
- God is infinite. But no body can be infinite, therefore God has no body.
Aquinas also addressed anthropomorphic language:
“When Scripture attributes bodily organs to God, it does so metaphorically. God’s eye signifies His knowledge, His arm signifies His power, His face signifies His essence as knowable by creatures. These are not statements about God’s physical form but about His operations and attributes expressed in language we can understand.” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 3, Article 1)
Duns Scotus (1266-1308)
Even Scotus, who often disagreed with Aquinas, affirmed divine incorporeality:
“God’s infinity excludes corporeality absolutely. A body, however large, has finite dimensions. The infinite God cannot be contained in finite dimensions. Moreover, God is purely spiritual, and spirit excludes matter absolutely.” (Ordinatio)
The Reformers: Protestant Agreement
The Protestant Reformers, while breaking from Rome on many issues, unanimously upheld classical theism regarding God’s nature.
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Luther, despite his sometimes earthy language, clearly affirmed God’s incorporeality:
“God is a supernatural, inscrutable being, wholly present in every grain of sand, and yet not confined or limited to any place. He is present everywhere and yet nowhere… God is not a corporeal substance but a spiritual essence, infinite and incomprehensible.” (Table Talk)
Luther specifically warned against literal interpretation of anthropomorphisms:
“When Moses writes that God created man in His image, he means that man is created with reason, will, and understanding. Not that God has a nose, eyes, and ears as we do! Away with such crude thoughts!” (Lectures on Genesis)
John Calvin (1509-1564)
Calvin provided extensive treatment of divine incorporeality in his Institutes:
“God is to be regarded as a Spirit, infinite, eternal, incomprehensible. Those who imagine that God has a body show themselves not only ignorant of Scripture but of common reason. For what is more absurd than to enclose the infinite within finite bounds, to limit the unlimited, to circumscribe Him who contains all things?” (Institutes, Book I, Chapter 13)
Calvin directly addressed Dake’s error of interpreting anthropomorphisms literally:
“God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children. Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what God is, as accommodate the knowledge of Him to our feebleness. In doing so, He must, of course, stoop far below His proper height.” (Institutes, Book I, Chapter 13, Section 1)
Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531)
Zwingli emphasized the philosophical necessity of divine incorporeality:
“If God had a body, He would be in a place. If in a place, He would be contained. If contained, He would be finite. If finite, He would not be God. Therefore, God has no body but is pure spirit, present everywhere yet contained nowhere.” (Commentary on True and False Religion)
Modern Orthodox Statements
Contemporary Christian statements continue to affirm what the church has always taught about God’s incorporeal nature.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)
While focused on Scripture’s authority, this statement assumes classical theism:
“God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.”
The statement assumes God “reveals Himself” through Scripture rather than being directly visible, consistent with incorporeality.
The Gospel Coalition Confessional Statement
This contemporary evangelical statement affirms:
“We believe in one God, eternally existing in three equally divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who know, love, and glorify one another. This one true and living God is infinitely perfect both in his love and in his holiness.”
Infinite perfection excludes corporeality, as bodies are necessarily finite and imperfect.
The Heretical Alternative: Anthropomorphite and Mormon Parallels
To understand the gravity of Dake’s error, we must examine the heretical movements that have taught similar doctrines.
The Anthropomorphites
In the fourth century, certain Egyptian monks began teaching that God literally has a human form. They were called Anthropomorphites (from Greek anthropos = human, morphe = form). Their error arose from the same hyperliteral interpretation Dake employs.
Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria initially supported them but later recognized the error and wrote against them:
“These simple brothers have been deceived by a literal reading of Scripture. When they read that man is made in God’s image, they imagine God must look like a man. When they read of God’s hands or eyes, they picture literal body parts. This is not faith but foolishness, not piety but blasphemy. God transcends all physical form.” (Paschal Letter, 399 AD)
The church universally condemned Anthropomorphitism. The monks who persisted in this teaching were disciplined, and their doctrine was formally anathematized. Yet this is precisely what Dake teaches—God has a human-like form with literal body parts.
Mormon Theology
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) teaches explicitly what Dake implies:
From Doctrine and Covenants 130:22: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”
Compare this with Dake’s teaching from God’s Plan for Man, page 51: “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each has His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit.”
The parallel is striking. Both teach:
- God the Father has a body
- This body has parts and form
- The Trinity consists of separate bodied beings
- Humans are the same type of being as God
- The difference between God and humans is degree, not kind
Critical Distinction
Evangelical Christians have long recognized Mormonism as a non-Christian religion precisely because of teachings like divine corporeality. When Dake teaches essentially the same doctrine, he places himself outside Christian orthodoxy. The fact that he arrives at this position through hyperliteralism rather than Joseph Smith’s revelations doesn’t make the error less serious.
Theological Implications of the Creeds vs. Dake
The contrast between creedal orthodoxy and Dake’s theology has profound implications for every area of Christian doctrine and life.
For the Doctrine of God
Orthodox Position: God is one infinite, eternal, unchangeable spiritual being, existing in three persons. He transcends creation while being immediately present to all of it. He is wholly other yet personally involved, incomprehensible yet knowable through revelation.
Dake’s Position: Three separate gods with physical bodies exist in space, travel from place to place, and rule the universe like cosmic executives. They are bigger and more powerful than us but essentially the same type of being.
The orthodox God inspires awe, worship, and reverence. Dake’s gods might inspire fear or admiration but not true worship, for they are creatures, not the Creator.
For Salvation
Orthodox Position: The infinite God became man to save us. The Creator entered creation. The eternal entered time. This is an incomprehensible miracle of love that bridges an infinite gap between God and humanity.
Dake’s Position: One god with a body took on a different kind of body. Since humans are already “in the God class,” salvation is less about bridging an infinite gap and more about elevation within the same category of being.
Orthodox salvation is a miracle of grace. Dake’s salvation is merely a transaction between similar beings.
For Worship
Orthodox Position: We worship the transcendent God who is present everywhere. No temple can contain Him, yet He dwells with the humble. Our worship ascends to the throne of heaven while God is immediately present with us.
Dake’s Position: We worship a god located in heaven who observes us from a distance. Our prayers must travel through space to reach his physical location. He cannot be immediately present with all believers simultaneously.
Orthodox worship is communion with the omnipresent God. Dake’s worship is communication with a distant deity.
For Prayer
Orthodox Position: God hears all prayers simultaneously because He is omnipresent and omniscient. He is as present to the prayer closet as to the throne room of heaven. Every believer has immediate access to God.
Dake’s Position: A god with physical ears in one location must somehow process millions of prayers. Either he cannot hear them all, or he depends on the other gods to relay messages. Prayer becomes uncertain.
For Ethics
Orthodox Position: We are made in God’s image—rational, moral, relational beings called to reflect God’s character. The image is spiritual and moral, not physical. All humans equally bear this image regardless of physical appearance.
Dake’s Position: The image of God is primarily physical. This raises questions: What does God look like? Which race resembles Him? Dake’s racist teachings about segregation flow naturally from his theology of a God with specific physical characteristics.
The Witness of Scripture Through Creedal Eyes
The creeds help us read Scripture correctly by providing interpretive guidelines derived from Scripture itself. Let’s examine key biblical texts through the lens of creedal orthodoxy versus Dake’s hermeneutic.
John 4:24 – “God is a Spirit”
Creedal Reading: This is a definitional statement about God’s essence. Jesus contrasts true worship with Samaritan and Jewish focus on physical locations. God, being spirit, is not confined to Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim but is accessible everywhere to those who worship in spirit and truth.
Dake’s Reading: Dake has to qualify this clear statement. He claims God has a “spirit body,” attempting to have it both ways. But a body, even a “spirit body,” is not the same as being spirit. Dake adds to Scripture what isn’t there.
1 Kings 8:27 – “Heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee”
Creedal Reading: Solomon recognizes that God transcends all spatial categories. Even the highest heavens cannot contain Him. This is a clear affirmation of divine infinity and omnipresence, impossible for a bodied being.
Dake’s Reading: Dake must explain this away. He claims it refers only to God’s spirit, not His body, thus dividing God into parts—His body in one place, His spirit everywhere. This destroys divine simplicity and unity.
Jeremiah 23:24 – “Do not I fill heaven and earth?”
Creedal Reading: God Himself fills all creation. He is immediately present everywhere, not through an intermediary but in His own being. This is possible only because God is spirit.
Dake’s Reading: In his note on this verse, Dake writes: “God is NOT omnipresent in body but in Spirit through the Holy Spirit.” This makes the Father less than fully God and divides the Trinity.
Acts 17:27-28 – “In him we live, and move, and have our being”
Creedal Reading: We exist within God’s omnipresent being. He is not far from any of us because He encompasses all. This intimate presence is possible only for an incorporeal God.
Dake’s Reading: If God has a body in heaven, we don’t live and move in Him but merely in space He created. Paul’s language becomes hyperbolic rather than literal.
Isaiah 66:1 – “Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool”
Creedal Reading: This poetic language expresses God’s sovereignty over all creation. The image of heaven as throne and earth as footstool indicates God transcends both, using them as a king uses royal furniture.
Dake’s Reading: Dake tends toward literalism, but even he cannot make this fully literal. If God literally sits on heaven as a throne with earth as His footstool, His body would be larger than the universe—contradicting Dake’s teaching that God lives in a specific place in heaven.
Why the Creeds Matter Today
Some might ask: Why do ancient creeds matter for contemporary Christianity? Can’t we just read the Bible without these historical documents? Dake’s errors demonstrate precisely why the creeds remain essential.
Protection Against Recurring Errors
Heresies don’t disappear; they recycle. The Anthropomorphite error of the fourth century reappears in Dake’s twentieth-century teaching. The creeds alert us to these recurring patterns. When someone teaches that God has a body, we don’t need to reinvent the theological wheel—the church has already examined and rejected this error.
The creeds function like theological antibodies, providing immunity against infections that would otherwise spread through the body of Christ. Without them, each generation would have to fight the same battles with no benefit from previous victories.
Boundary Markers of Orthodox Faith
The creeds establish the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. Not every theological disagreement is a matter of heresy, but some positions place one outside the Christian faith. The creeds help us distinguish between:
- Essential doctrines (God’s nature, Trinity, Incarnation) where deviation constitutes heresy
- Important doctrines (church government, baptismal mode) where disagreement is serious but not heretical
- Secondary matters (worship style, eschatological details) where liberty exists
Dake’s theology violates essential doctrines established by every major creed. This isn’t a minor disagreement but a fundamental departure from Christianity.
Unity Across Time and Culture
The creeds unite believers across centuries and cultures. When we recite the Apostles’ Creed, we join our voices with Christians from every era—Augustine and Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, Wesley and Edwards. This unity transcends denominational divisions.
Dake’s rejection of creedal authority isolates him and his followers from this great tradition. They become a theological island, cut off from the communion of saints throughout history.
Interpretive Guidelines
The creeds provide hermeneutical principles for reading Scripture. They teach us to:
- Recognize anthropomorphic language
- Distinguish literal from figurative expressions
- Read difficult passages in light of clear ones
- Maintain the Creator-creature distinction
- Preserve the unity of God’s being
Without these guidelines, we’re vulnerable to the kind of hyperliteral misreading that characterizes Dake’s work.
Responding to Potential Objections
Defenders of Dake might raise various objections to this creedal critique. Let’s address the most common:
Objection 1: “We Follow the Bible, Not Creeds”
Response: The creeds summarize biblical teaching. They don’t add to Scripture but crystallize what Scripture teaches. Rejecting the creeds while claiming to follow the Bible alone is historically naive and theologically dangerous. Everyone interprets Scripture through some framework; the question is whether that framework aligns with or contradicts the church’s Spirit-guided understanding through history.
Moreover, Dake doesn’t actually follow “the Bible alone.” His study Bible contains thousands of notes imposing his interpretation on Scripture. These notes function as his own creed, teaching readers how to understand the Bible. The difference is that his “creed” contradicts two millennia of Christian orthodoxy.
Objection 2: “The Creeds Are Human Tradition”
Response: Jesus condemned human traditions that nullify God’s word (Mark 7:13), not those that preserve and protect it. The creeds arose from careful study of Scripture, intensive prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus (John 16:13). They represent not human speculation but the church’s collective understanding of biblical revelation.
Furthermore, Dake’s theology is also human tradition—just very recent and very wrong tradition. The choice isn’t between human tradition and pure biblical teaching but between tested, orthodox tradition and novel, heretical tradition.
Objection 3: “The Creeds Use Philosophical Language Foreign to Scripture”
Response: The creeds use philosophical precision to protect biblical truth. Terms like “substance” and “essence” aren’t adding to Scripture but providing categories to preserve what Scripture teaches against heretical distortion.
Consider an analogy: The word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Scripture, but it accurately describes the biblical teaching about God. Similarly, saying God is “incorporeal” precisely expresses what the Bible means by “God is spirit.”
Dake also uses non-biblical language—”spirit body,” “the God class,” “three separate and distinct persons with three separate bodies.” The issue isn’t whether we use extra-biblical terms but whether those terms accurately represent biblical teaching.
Objection 4: “The Creeds Reflect Greek Philosophy, Not Hebrew Thought”
Response: This false dichotomy misunderstands both Hebrew and Greek thought. The Old Testament itself affirms God’s transcendence, infinity, and distinction from creation—concepts the creeds preserve using precise language.
The Hebrew Scriptures declare:
- God is not a man (Numbers 23:19)
- No form was seen at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:12)
- Heaven cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27)
- God fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24)
These aren’t Greek philosophical impositions but biblical affirmations the creeds protect.
The Practical Consequences of Creedal Orthodoxy vs. Dake’s Heresy
The theological differences between creedal orthodoxy and Dake’s teaching produce dramatically different practical outcomes in Christian life and ministry.
In Personal Devotion
Orthodox Practice: Believers can pray anywhere knowing God is immediately present. Whether in prison or palace, hospital or home, God hears and responds. Prayer is intimate communion with the omnipresent God who is closer than our breath.
Dake’s Practice: Prayer becomes uncertain. Is God’s body close enough to hear? Must our prayers travel through space? Are they relayed through the Holy Spirit? The intimacy of “Abba, Father” is replaced by communication with a distant deity.
In Corporate Worship
Orthodox Practice: The congregation gathers in God’s presence. He is not more present in the building than outside, but His special presence accompanies the gathered church. Worship is participation in the heavenly liturgy, joining angels and saints in eternal praise.
Dake’s Practice: Worship is directed toward a god in a distant location. The congregation sends their praise through space to God’s throne. The sense of immediate divine presence diminishes.
In Evangelism
Orthodox Message: We proclaim the infinite God who became man to save us. The Creator entered creation, the eternal entered time, the infinite became finite while remaining infinite. This is good news of cosmic significance.
Dake’s Message: We speak of gods who are essentially superhuman beings. The gospel becomes less amazing, the incarnation less miraculous, the gap between God and humanity less significant. Why worship beings who are merely more powerful versions of ourselves?
In Pastoral Care
Orthodox Comfort: God is immediately present with the suffering. He doesn’t observe pain from a distance but enters into it. The omnipresent God surrounds, upholds, and comforts directly.
Dake’s Comfort: A distant god observes suffering from his throne. Comfort must travel through space. The immediacy of divine presence in trial is lost.
In Christian Ethics
Orthodox Foundation: All humans bear God’s image—His rational, moral, spiritual likeness. This grounds human dignity, equality, and rights. Physical differences are irrelevant to image-bearing.
Dake’s Foundation: If the image is physical and God has specific physical features, some humans might bear more of God’s image than others. This opens the door to the racist theology Dake explicitly taught.
A Call to Return to Orthodox Faith
Having examined the stark contrast between creedal orthodoxy and Dake’s heterodoxy, we must issue a clear call to those influenced by his teaching: return to the faith once delivered to the saints.
For Those Using Dake’s Bible
If you own a Dake Study Bible, we urge you to:
- Test everything against Scripture itself, not Dake’s notes
- Compare Dake’s teaching with the historic creeds
- Consult orthodox commentaries and study Bibles
- Consider replacing the Dake Bible with a trustworthy study Bible
- Discuss your concerns with trained pastors and theologians
Remember: the stakes are not trivial. Worshipping false gods is idolatry. Teaching heresy brings severe judgment (James 3:1). Error about God’s nature affects every aspect of faith and life.
For Pastors and Teachers
If you lead others, your responsibility is grave:
- Examine what study resources your congregation uses
- Teach clearly on God’s nature and the Trinity
- Explain why anthropomorphisms aren’t literal
- Use the creeds in worship and teaching
- Address Dake’s errors explicitly if his influence is present
- Provide orthodox alternatives for those using Dake
You will give account for those under your care. Don’t allow false teaching about God to poison your flock.
For Theological Educators
Seminaries and Bible colleges must:
- Teach historical theology and the importance of creeds
- Warn students about contemporary heresies like Dake’s
- Emphasize proper hermeneutics to prevent hyperliteralism
- Show how ancient errors resurface in modern forms
- Equip graduates to recognize and refute false teaching
Conclusion: The Creeds Stand as Witnesses
The great creeds of Christianity stand as witnesses against Finis Dake’s theological errors. For nearly two millennia, the church has confessed that God is spirit—infinite, eternal, unchangeable, without body, parts, or passions. This isn’t philosophical speculation imposed on Scripture but the necessary implication of biblical teaching about God’s nature. When Dake teaches that God has a body, that the Trinity consists of three separate beings, that humans are in “the God class,” he doesn’t offer fresh biblical insight but resurrects ancient heresies the church definitively rejected.
The contrast could not be more stark. Where the creeds affirm one God, Dake teaches three. Where they declare God incorporeal, he details God’s body parts. Where they emphasize the Creator-creature distinction, he places humans and God in the same category. Where they preserve the mystery of the incarnation, he reduces it to a change of bodies. Where they unite believers across time and culture, he isolates his followers from orthodox Christianity.
The creeds matter because truth matters. They matter because God’s nature matters. They matter because worshipping false gods is idolatry, and idolatry damns souls. The church fathers who formulated these creeds understood the stakes. They fought, suffered, and sometimes died to preserve true teaching about God. Their legacy to us is not dead tradition but living truth—boundaries that protect the faith once delivered to the saints.
We have examined Dake’s theology in light of:
- The Apostles’ Creed’s simple affirmations
- The Nicene Creed’s precise definitions
- The Athanasian Creed’s careful distinctions
- The Chalcedonian Definition’s Christological clarity
- The Fourth Lateran Council’s philosophical precision
- The Protestant Confessions’ reformed orthodoxy
- The unanimous witness of the church fathers
At every point, Dake’s teaching fails the test of orthodoxy. This isn’t a marginal disagreement or a different emphasis but a fundamental departure from Christianity. To follow Dake’s theology is to leave the faith of Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, Augustine, Athanasius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and every orthodox Christian throughout history.
The path forward is clear: abandon Dake’s errors and return to orthodox faith. Embrace the God revealed in Scripture and confessed in the creeds—the infinite, eternal, unchangeable Spirit who is one in essence and three in persons. Worship Him not as a superhuman being with a body but as the transcendent Creator who incomprehensibly became man for our salvation. Find comfort not in a distant deity but in the omnipresent God who is closer than your breath. Ground human dignity not in physical resemblance to a bodied god but in bearing the image of the infinite Spirit.
Let the ancient words guide us still:
“We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.”
This is the faith once delivered to the saints. This is the faith the creeds preserve. This is the faith Dake denies. This is the faith to which all who value truth must cling. May God grant us wisdom to recognize error, courage to reject it, and grace to proclaim the truth in love.
Soli Deo Gloria
© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.
