Conclusion: Finis Jennings Dake and His Redefinition and Rejection of The Trinity

Opening: The Danger of Familiar Words with Different Meanings

Imagine you’re at a church Bible study, and the teacher pulls out a well-worn Dake Annotated Reference Bible. As he teaches about God, you hear familiar words—”Trinity,” “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” “three persons.” Everything sounds orthodox, biblical, solid. But as the lesson continues, something seems off. The teacher explains that God the Father has a body just like ours, only made of spirit material. He says the Father can only be in one place at a time because His body, like ours, is localized. He describes three separate beings, each with their own body, soul, and spirit, sitting on three different thrones in heaven.

You’ve just encountered one of the most subtle yet dangerous redefinitions of the Trinity in modern Christianity—the teaching of Finis Jennings Dake. What makes Dake’s error particularly deceptive is that he uses all the right words while giving them entirely different meanings. He speaks of the “Trinity” while actually teaching tritheism (three gods). He affirms “three persons” while meaning three completely separate beings. He claims to believe in “one God” while explaining this means only one in purpose, not one in essence.

This appendix will carefully examine how Dake departed from two thousand years of orthodox Christian teaching about the Trinity, why his redefinition matters, and how to recognize and respond to this error when we encounter it in our churches today.

Section 1: Who Was Finis Jennings Dake?

Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987) was a Pentecostal minister and evangelist who left an indelible mark on American Christianity through his writings, particularly through the Dake Annotated Reference Bible, first published in 1963. Born in Miller County, Missouri, Dake claimed a supernatural ability to quote Scripture flawlessly from memory, earning him the nickname “the walking Bible.” Throughout his ministry, he pastored several churches, founded a Bible school, and lectured extensively on biblical topics.

Dake’s influence extends far beyond his lifetime, primarily through his study Bible, which remains popular in many Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. The Dake Bible contains over 35,000 commentary notes, 8,000 sermon outlines, and extensive cross-references. For many Christians, particularly those without formal theological training, Dake’s notes carry the same weight as Scripture itself—a dangerous conflation when those notes contain serious doctrinal errors.

What made Dake particularly influential was his claim to interpret the Bible “literally” wherever possible, promising to teach nothing he couldn’t prove with “two or three plain scriptures.” This approach appealed to many sincere believers who wanted to understand God’s Word without what they saw as the complications of theology or tradition. Unfortunately, Dake’s radical literalism led him to conclusions that contradicted not only church tradition but the Bible itself.

Dake spent over 100,000 hours studying Scripture—the equivalent of working full-time for fifty years. This dedication impressed many and gave weight to his teachings. However, time spent in study doesn’t guarantee orthodox conclusions. As we’ll see, Dake’s determination to be “literal” at all costs led him to reject the church’s historic understanding of the Trinity, replacing it with a doctrine that essentially teaches three separate gods.

It’s important to acknowledge that Dake was a sincere believer who loved God’s Word and wanted others to understand it. Many Christians have benefited from aspects of his work. However, sincerity doesn’t equal accuracy, and good intentions don’t excuse doctrinal error—especially error as serious as redefining the nature of God Himself.

Section 2: Dake’s “Trinity” Doctrine Examined

When Dake wrote about the Trinity, he made statements that would shock most Christians if they fully understood their implications. Let’s examine his actual teachings, drawn from his own writings:

Three Separate Beings with Bodies

According to Dake, the Trinity consists of “three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul, and spirit” (God’s Plan for Man, p. 54). Notice carefully what Dake is saying: each member of the Trinity has a separate body, soul, and spirit in the same sense that humans do.

This immediately raises a crucial question: If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have separate bodies in the same way humans do, how can they be one God? Dake’s answer reveals the depth of his departure from orthodoxy. He argues that they are “one” only in the sense of unity of purpose, not in essence or being. In other words, Dake teaches three separate gods who work together, not one God in three persons.

Denial of Omnipresence for Father and Son

One of the most startling aspects of Dake’s theology is his explicit denial that God the Father and God the Son are omnipresent in body. He writes: “Spirit beings, including God, Himself, cannot be omnipresent in body, for their bodies are of ordinary size and must be at one place at a time, in the same way that bodies of men are always localized, being in one place at a time” (God’s Plan for Man, p. 61).

Think about what Dake is claiming: God the Father has a body of “ordinary size” that can only be in one place at a time, just like a human body. This isn’t the biblical God who fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24), but a limited being confined to a single location. Dake tries to salvage some concept of omnipresence by saying God’s “presence” (but not His body) can be felt everywhere, but this explanation creates more problems than it solves.

The Bible clearly teaches God’s omnipresence: “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there” (Psalm 139:7-8, NIV). This isn’t speaking of God’s influence or presence being “felt” at a distance, but of God Himself being present everywhere. As Solomon declared at the temple dedication: “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you” (1 Kings 8:27, NIV).

Each Person Having Their Own Soul and Spirit

Dake insists that each member of the Trinity has a completely separate soul (the seat of emotions and feelings) and spirit (the seat of intellect and will). This means, in Dake’s system, that the Father has His own set of emotions separate from the Son’s emotions, and the Son has His own will distinct from the Spirit’s will.

But Jesus explicitly said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). He didn’t say, “The Father and I work together well” or “The Father and I have the same goals.” The Greek word used here (hen) indicates essential unity, not mere cooperation. Similarly, Jesus said He came not to do His own will but the will of Him who sent Him (John 6:38)—not because He had a different will that He chose to subordinate, but because the divine will is one.

Three Thrones in Heaven

Dake’s literalistic interpretation leads him to envision three separate thrones in heaven for the three separate beings he believes constitute the Godhead. While Scripture does speak of Christ seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3), this is accommodative language describing the Son’s position of authority, not a literal seating arrangement of separate beings.

Revelation 4 and 5 present a vision of heavenly worship where there is one throne, with the Lamb (Christ) in the center of the throne (Revelation 5:6; 7:17). The unity of the throne represents the unity of divine rule and nature. Dake’s three thrones would require three separate kingdoms, three separate authorities—in essence, three separate gods.

Section 3: How Dake Redefines “Trinity”

Perhaps the most deceptive aspect of Dake’s teaching is how he uses orthodox terminology while completely redefining its meaning. This technique—using familiar Christian words but giving them unbiblical definitions—is a hallmark of theological error throughout church history.

Using the Word While Changing the Meaning

Dake freely uses the word “Trinity” throughout his writings. To the casual reader, this suggests he holds to orthodox Christian doctrine. But notice how he defines it: “TRINITY. This means the union of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one (unified) Godhead or divinity, so that all three persons are one in unity and eternal substance, but three separate and distinct persons as to individuality.”

At first glance, this might seem acceptable. But Dake’s definition of “persons” is radically different from the church’s historic understanding. When orthodox Christianity speaks of three “persons,” it uses the term technically to translate the Greek hypostasis and Latin persona, meaning distinct subsistences within the one divine essence. Dake means three completely separate individuals, each with their own body, soul, and spirit—essentially three separate beings.

His Appeal to “Literal” Interpretation

Dake justified his redefinition by claiming to interpret Scripture “literally” wherever possible. He argued that when the Bible speaks of God’s hands, eyes, or other body parts, we should understand these as literal physical features. When Scripture describes the Father and Son as two persons, Dake insisted this means two separate beings.

But “literal” interpretation doesn’t mean ignoring literary genres, figures of speech, or accommodative language. When the Bible speaks of God’s “wings” (Psalm 91:4) or asks if God is a “rock” (Psalm 18:2), even Dake wouldn’t insist God has feathers or is made of stone. The Bible often uses anthropomorphic language (describing God in human terms) to help us understand divine realities that transcend our experience.

True literal interpretation takes the text in its natural sense according to its genre and context. Poetry uses poetic language. Apocalyptic literature uses symbolic imagery. Historical narrative uses straightforward description. Dake’s wooden literalism ignores these distinctions, leading to absurd conclusions like God having a physical body of “ordinary size.”

Rejection of Theological Tradition

Dake explicitly rejected centuries of theological reflection on the Trinity. He wrote dismissively of theologians who “make God too mystical to understand,” claiming that traditional Trinity doctrine “bewilders the most astute and is frankly beyond the comprehension of the most learned.”

Instead of seeing the church’s careful theological formulations as attempts to faithfully express biblical truth, Dake saw them as unnecessary complications. He believed he could sweep away two thousand years of Christian thought and arrive at the “simple” truth through his literalistic reading.

But the church’s theological tradition isn’t arbitrary human speculation—it represents the collective wisdom of countless believers who carefully studied Scripture, prayed for understanding, and tested their conclusions against the whole counsel of God. The great creeds and confessions arose not from a desire to complicate the faith but to protect it from errors—errors remarkably similar to Dake’s.

Creating Confusion Through Familiar Terminology

The result of Dake’s redefinition is massive confusion among his readers. They think they’re learning orthodox doctrine because they hear orthodox terms. They can honestly say they believe in the “Trinity” and in “three persons” of the Godhead. But what they actually believe is tritheism—three gods—which the church has consistently rejected as heretical.

This confusion extends to evangelism and discipleship. When Dake’s followers share their faith, they use language that sounds biblical to other Christians. Only upon deeper examination does the radical nature of their departure from orthodoxy become clear. Meanwhile, they may be teaching new believers a fundamentally false view of God’s nature.

Section 4: Biblical Refutation of Dake’s Views

The Bible provides abundant evidence that Dake’s view of three separate beings with physical bodies contradicts God’s revealed nature. Let’s examine key passages that refute his position:

God Is Spirit (John 4:24)

Jesus’ declaration to the Samaritan woman is unequivocal: “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24, NIV). The Greek construction here (pneuma ho theos) emphasizes God’s essential nature as spirit. This doesn’t mean God has a spirit (as Dake claims) but that God is spirit.

What does it mean that God is spirit? It means He is not composed of matter as we know it. He doesn’t have a physical body that occupies space and can only be in one location. As Jesus explained after His resurrection, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). If God is spirit, He cannot have the kind of localized body Dake describes.

Dake tries to argue that there are “spirit bodies” that are just as physical and limited as human bodies, only made of different material. But this contradicts the very nature of spirit as Scripture presents it. Spirit is contrasted with, not compared to, physical existence.

Omnipresence of All Three Persons

Scripture consistently teaches the omnipresence of each person of the Trinity, not just their “presence” being felt at a distance as Dake suggests:

The Father’s Omnipresence: “Am I only a God nearby,” declares the LORD, “and not a God far away? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?” declares the LORD. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:23-24, NIV). The Hebrew word male translated “fill” means to fill completely, not merely to influence from a distance.

The Son’s Omnipresence: Jesus promised, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, NIV) and “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them” (Matthew 18:20, NIV). These promises require true omnipresence, not just influence from a distant location. Christ cannot be physically present with all believers everywhere if He has a body of “ordinary size” limited to one location.

The Spirit’s Omnipresence: David asks, “Where can I go from your Spirit?” (Psalm 139:7, NIV). Paul teaches that the Spirit dwells in all believers simultaneously (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19). This is impossible if the Spirit has a localized body that can only be in one place.

One Throne, Not Three

While Dake envisions three separate thrones for three separate beings, Scripture consistently presents a unified picture of divine rule:

In Revelation 22:1, John sees “the throne of God and of the Lamb”—one throne, not two. In Revelation 3:21, Jesus says, “To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne” (NIV). Notice it’s “his throne” (singular), not “their thrones” (plural).

The throne represents divine authority and rule. One throne indicates one divine authority, one rule, one God. Multiple thrones would indicate multiple authorities, multiple kingdoms—in essence, multiple gods. This is precisely what Dake’s system requires but what Scripture forbids.

Unity Passages Dake Ignores

Throughout Scripture, we find passages that teach the essential unity of the Godhead—passages that make no sense in Dake’s system of three separate beings:

Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (NIV). The Hebrew word echad means “one,” not “three working together.” This is the fundamental confession of monotheism that Jesus Himself affirmed as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29).

Isaiah 44:6: “This is what the LORD says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God” (NIV). Notice the singular pronouns. God doesn’t say, “We are the first and we are the last; apart from us there are no gods.”

1 Corinthians 8:4: “We know that ‘An idol is nothing at all in the world’ and that ‘There is no God but one'” (NIV). Paul affirms absolute monotheism, not three gods working in unity.

John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (NIV). The Word (Christ) was both “with” God (indicating distinction of persons) and “was” God (indicating unity of essence). In Dake’s system, this would have to read, “the Word was a separate God.”/p>

Section 5: The Influence of Dake’s Bible

Understanding the widespread influence of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible helps us grasp why this appendix matters. This isn’t merely an academic exercise in theological precision—it addresses a real and present danger in many churches today.

Widespread Use in Pentecostal Circles

The Dake Bible has sold millions of copies since its publication and remains a popular study Bible, particularly in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches. Many pastors who attended Bible colleges where systematic theology wasn’t emphasized rely heavily on Dake’s notes for sermon preparation and teaching. Some Bible study groups use the Dake Bible as their primary resource.

In many of these settings, Dake’s notes carry enormous authority. When Brother Dake says something in his notes, it’s accepted as biblical truth. The average church member doesn’t realize they’re receiving one man’s interpretation—and a seriously flawed interpretation at that. They assume that because it’s in a study Bible, it must be accurate.

This influence extends beyond individual churches. Some missionary organizations have distributed Dake Bibles internationally, spreading his errors to other cultures and languages. Bible schools in developing nations sometimes use Dake’s materials because they’re comprehensive and seem thoroughly biblical with their extensive proof-texting.

How Annotations Shape Theology

Study Bible notes have a subtle but powerful influence on how people read Scripture. When you see a verse and immediately read a note explaining what it “really means,” that interpretation becomes fixed in your mind. Future readings of the text are filtered through that initial interpretation.

Dake’s Bible contains over 35,000 notes—far more than most study Bibles. These notes appear authoritative, with extensive cross-references and confident assertions. Readers, especially those without theological training, naturally assume such detailed commentary must be accurate. After all, who would write 35,000 notes if they weren’t sure of what they were saying?

The danger increases because Dake’s notes often contain accurate observations mixed with serious errors. A note might correctly explain a historical detail or Greek word definition, building trust, then present a completely unorthodox theological conclusion. Readers who’ve learned to trust the accurate information accept the errors along with the truth.

The Problem of Study Bible Authority

The broader issue raised by Dake’s influence is how much authority we should give to study Bible notes, commentaries, and other human interpretations of Scripture. While these resources can be helpful, they’re not inspired or infallible. Every note, no matter how learned the author, must be tested against Scripture itself.

The Bereans were commended because they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11, NIV). If early Christians were encouraged to test even an apostle’s teaching against Scripture, how much more should we test the notes in our study Bibles?

Unfortunately, many Christians treat study Bible notes as practically equal to Scripture itself. They quote Dake (or other commentators) as authoritatively as they quote the Bible. This elevates human interpretation to dangerous heights and can lead believers far from biblical truth.

Section 6: Responding to Dake Followers

When you encounter someone influenced by Dake’s teaching, how should you respond? Here are biblical and practical strategies for addressing this error with grace and truth:

Common Arguments They Make

Understanding the typical arguments of Dake’s followers helps us prepare thoughtful responses. Here are claims you’re likely to encounter:

“The Bible says God has hands, eyes, and other body parts, so He must have a body.”
Response: The Bible also says God has wings (Psalm 91:4) and that He’s a rock (Psalm 18:2). Do they believe God has feathers or is made of stone? Scripture uses anthropomorphic language to help us understand God’s actions and attributes. When the Bible speaks of God’s “eyes,” it’s teaching us that God sees; when it mentions His “hands,” it’s showing us that God acts. These are accommodations to our human understanding, not literal physical descriptions.

“The Bible shows people seeing God, so He must have a visible body.”
Response: God can and does manifest Himself in visible forms (theophanies) without having a permanent physical body. These appearances are accommodations to human limitation, not revelations of God’s essential nature. Jesus said, “No one has seen God at any time” (John 1:18, NKJV), referring to God in His essential nature. The theophanies people saw were temporary manifestations, not sightings of a permanently embodied deity.

“Three persons must mean three separate beings.”
Response: This confuses the English word “person” with the theological term. The church uses “person” (from Latin persona) as a technical term to describe the three distinct subsistences within the one divine essence. We’re not saying God is one person who is also three persons (that would be contradictory), but that God is one in essence and three in persons. Human analogies fail here because we’re describing a unique divine reality.

“Jesus and the Father are obviously two different beings because Jesus prayed to the Father.”
Response: The distinction of persons within the Trinity is real—the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. They have genuine relationships with each other. But distinction doesn’t mean separation. The three persons are distinct but not separate, because they share the same divine essence. Jesus could pray to the Father because He is a distinct person, even while being one in essence with the Father.

Gracious Correction Strategies

When correcting this error, remember that many Dake followers are sincere believers who want to understand God’s Word. They’re not trying to be heretical; they’ve simply been taught incorrectly. Approach them with gentleness and respect:

1. Start with Common Ground: Begin by affirming shared beliefs—the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith. This establishes that you’re fellow believers discussing how to understand God’s Word, not enemies fighting over religion.

2. Ask Questions Rather Than Making Accusations: Instead of saying, “You believe in three gods!” ask, “How do you understand the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?” Let them explain their position in their own words. This helps you understand exactly what they believe and shows respect for them as people.

3. Focus on Scripture, Not Dake: Rather than attacking Dake personally or his Bible’s notes, focus on what Scripture itself teaches. Show them biblical passages that contradict the three-separate-beings view. Let God’s Word do the correcting.

4. Use Clear Biblical Categories: Help them understand the difference between “one in essence” and “three in persons.” Show how Scripture teaches both unity and distinction without contradiction.

5. Be Patient: If someone has used the Dake Bible for years, they won’t abandon its teachings overnight. Plant seeds of truth and trust the Holy Spirit to bring growth. Sometimes it takes multiple conversations over months or years for someone to see the error.

Key Passages to Address

When discussing this issue, certain passages are particularly helpful in demonstrating the biblical Trinity versus Dake’s tritheism:

John 10:30 – “I and My Father are one” (NKJV). Ask them: “In what sense is Jesus one with the Father? If they’re just unified in purpose like two humans might be, why did the Jews try to stone Jesus for blasphemy after this statement?”

Isaiah 43:10-11 – “Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, and besides Me there is no savior” (NKJV). Ask them: “If the Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate Gods, how can God say there is no God beside Him? And if only one of them is the Savior, what about the others?”

Colossians 2:9 – “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (NKJV). Ask them: “If the Father and Spirit have their own separate bodies, how can ALL the fullness of the Godhead dwell in Christ’s body?”

Matthew 28:19 – “Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (NKJV). Point out: “Notice it’s ‘name’ (singular), not ‘names’ (plural). We baptize in one name that belongs to all three persons, indicating their essential unity.”

Section 7: Why This Matters – The Stakes of Trinity Doctrine

Some might wonder why we’re making such a big deal about Dake’s teaching. After all, he believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He affirmed salvation by grace through faith. Why does it matter if his understanding of the Trinity was off?

The Nature of God Himself

First and foremost, this is about the very nature of God. There is nothing more important than knowing God as He truly is. Jesus said eternal life is knowing “you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3, NIV). If we have a fundamentally wrong understanding of who God is, we don’t truly know Him.

Dake’s system doesn’t just slightly modify our understanding of God—it completely redefines it. Instead of one infinite, omnipresent, all-powerful God, we have three limited beings with localized bodies. Instead of the God who fills heaven and earth, we have deities who must travel from place to place like created beings. This isn’t the God of the Bible; it’s a different god altogether.

The Foundation of Worship

Our theology determines our doxology—what we believe about God shapes how we worship Him. If God is three separate beings, our worship becomes divided. Do we worship all three equally? Do we worship them separately? Do we need three different relationships with three different gods?

The biblical pattern is clear: we worship one God. The great Shema that Jesus affirmed declares, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4, NIV). This isn’t just a statement of fact but a call to exclusive worship and devotion. Tritheism inevitably leads to confused and divided worship.

The Gospel Itself

The Trinity isn’t an abstract doctrine disconnected from the gospel—it’s essential to it. In the biblical gospel, God Himself becomes man to save us. The infinite takes on finitude. The eternal enters time. The Creator becomes creature while remaining Creator. This is only possible if the Son shares the same divine nature as the Father.

In Dake’s system, one limited being sends another limited being to save us. The incarnation becomes merely one spirit-being taking on flesh, not the infinite God becoming man. The value of Christ’s sacrifice is diminished if He’s merely a separate deity rather than God Himself in the person of the Son.

The Basis of Christian Unity

Jesus prayed that believers would be one “as we are one” (John 17:11, NIV). The unity of the church is meant to reflect the unity of the Trinity. But what kind of unity does Dake’s Trinity model? Merely external cooperation between separate beings. This reduces Christian unity to mere collaboration rather than the deep, essential unity that reflects God’s own nature.

Furthermore, throughout history, the orthodox understanding of the Trinity has been a defining mark of genuine Christianity. It’s what separates Christians from Jews, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and other groups. When we redefine the Trinity, we step outside the boundaries of historic Christian faith.

Section 8: Protecting Against Redefinition

Dake’s redefinition of the Trinity serves as a warning about a broader problem in contemporary Christianity: the tendency to redefine theological terms while keeping familiar language. How can we protect ourselves and our churches from this danger?

The Importance of Theological Education

One reason Dake’s errors gain traction is widespread theological ignorance among Christians. Many believers can’t explain what the Trinity actually means or why it matters. They know Christians are supposed to believe in it, but they don’t understand it well enough to recognize counterfeits.

Churches must prioritize theological education—not dry academic exercises, but living theology that connects divine truth to daily life. Every believer should be able to give a basic explanation of core doctrines like the Trinity, the incarnation, and justification by faith. This doesn’t require seminary education, but it does require intentional teaching and learning.

Sunday school classes, small groups, and discipleship programs should include basic theology. New believers need grounding in essential doctrines. Even mature believers benefit from regular review and deeper study of foundational truths.

The Value of Historic Confessions

The great creeds and confessions of church history—the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and others—aren’t Scripture, but they’re valuable summaries of scriptural teaching. They were formulated specifically to combat errors like Dake’s.

Consider the precision of the Athanasian Creed: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.” This directly addresses both the error of modalism (confounding the persons) and Dake’s error of tritheism (dividing the substance).

Churches that ignore these historic statements lose the accumulated wisdom of centuries of Christian reflection. We don’t need to treat creeds as infallible, but we should recognize their value in maintaining orthodox faith across generations.

Testing All Teaching Against Scripture

The ultimate safeguard against theological error is careful study of Scripture itself. Every teaching, no matter how popular the teacher or how comprehensive their study Bible, must be tested against God’s Word.

This requires more than proof-texting—pulling isolated verses to support predetermined conclusions. We need to understand Scripture in context, comparing Scripture with Scripture, understanding the whole counsel of God. Dake could cite hundreds of verses for his position, but they were taken out of context and misinterpreted through his flawed theological grid.

Churches should encourage biblical literacy—not just reading the Bible but understanding how to interpret it properly. This includes recognizing different genres, understanding historical context, and identifying figures of speech. With these tools, believers can better evaluate teaching they encounter.

The Role of Accountability

Dake developed his theology largely in isolation from the broader church. He rejected centuries of theological reflection and developed his own system. This isolation from accountability enabled his errors to flourish unchecked.

We all need theological accountability—people who can correct us when we’re wrong, challenge our interpretations, and help us see our blind spots. This might be pastors, teachers, or simply mature believers who know Scripture well. Even pastors and teachers need accountability; no one is immune to error.

This accountability extends to the books and resources we use. Before adopting a study Bible or commentary as authoritative, we should investigate the author’s theological position. What do they believe about essential doctrines? Are they accountable to any church or denomination? Have other respected teachers reviewed their work?

Conclusion: Standing Firm on Biblical Truth

Finis Jennings Dake was a devoted student of Scripture who spent his life trying to understand and teach God’s Word. We can appreciate his dedication while recognizing that dedication alone doesn’t guarantee accuracy. His redefinition of the Trinity, despite using familiar terminology, represents a dangerous departure from biblical Christianity.

The error we’ve examined isn’t merely academic. It strikes at the heart of Christian faith—the nature of God Himself. When we exchange the one true God who exists eternally as three persons for three separate, limited beings, we’ve exchanged the truth for a lie. We’ve created gods in our own image rather than worshiping the God who created us in His.

As we’ve seen, Dake’s error arose from a misguided attempt to make God “simple” and “understandable” through wooden literalism. But God is infinite, and there are aspects of His nature that transcend our finite understanding. The Trinity is a revealed mystery—clearly taught in Scripture but beyond full human comprehension. Rather than trying to reduce God to our level, we should humbly accept what He has revealed and worship Him in spirit and truth.

For those influenced by Dake’s teaching, there is hope. The same Bible that Dake misinterpreted contains the clear truth about God’s nature. The Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture can illuminate our understanding. The church that has preserved orthodox teaching through centuries continues to proclaim the truth. And the God who is patient with all our misunderstandings desires that we know Him as He truly is.

Let us hold firmly to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity: one God, eternally existing in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—equal in power and glory, of one substance, will, and purpose. This isn’t philosophical speculation but biblical revelation. It’s not needless complexity but glorious truth. It’s not beyond belief but the very foundation of our faith.

As we close this examination of Dake’s errors, let’s remember Paul’s charge to Timothy: “Guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20, NIV). The doctrine of the Trinity has been entrusted to the church. We must guard it, teach it accurately, and pass it on faithfully to the next generation.

May we never tire of declaring with the church through all ages: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.” This is the God of the Bible. This is the God who saves us. This is the God we worship and serve. To Him—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—be glory forever and ever. Amen.

Bibliography

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Carson, D. A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton: Crossway, 2000.

Dake, Finis Jennings. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963.

Dake, Finis Jennings. God’s Plan for Man. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. New York: Scribner, 1872-1873.

Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Reeves, Michael. Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012.

Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Ware, Bruce A. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1915.

White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.