Opening Question: What happens when God’s presence becomes merely psychological rather than ontological reality? When we reduce the infinite, omnipresent God to nothing more than a feeling we might or might not experience, have we not created an idol of our own making?
Imagine a young believer lying in a hospital bed, wracked with pain, feeling utterly alone and abandoned. The morphine clouds their mind, and they cannot sense God’s presence at all. According to Finis Dake’s teaching, God is not actually there with them unless they can “feel” His presence through their relationship with Him. But according to the Bible, that believer is never alone, never abandoned, never outside the actual, objective presence of the Almighty God who fills heaven and earth. This distinction between Dake’s subjective, feeling-based omnipresence and the Bible’s objective, reality-based omnipresence is not merely academic—it strikes at the very heart of our faith and our understanding of who God is.
Finis Jennings Dake, in his influential yet deeply flawed work “God’s Plan for Man,” presents a view of God’s omnipresence that fundamentally misunderstands the nature of divine presence. He reduces the majestic, overwhelming reality of God’s omnipresence to a mere psychological phenomenon—something we might or might not experience based on our relationship with Him. This teaching is not simply wrong; it is dangerous, for it robs believers of comfort, creates theological chaos, and ultimately presents a God who is less than the God revealed in Scripture.
In this chapter, we will carefully examine Dake’s teaching about what he calls “felt presence,” demonstrating how it contradicts clear biblical teaching about God’s omnipresence. We will see how this error stems from a fundamental confusion between objective reality and subjective experience, between what is actually true and what we might feel at any given moment. Most importantly, we will return to the solid ground of biblical truth, showing that God’s presence is not dependent on our awareness, our feelings, or our spiritual condition, but is rather an unchangeable fact rooted in the very nature of God Himself.
1. Dake’s “Felt Presence” Teaching Examined
To understand the depth of Dake’s error, we must first examine exactly what he taught about God’s presence. In his book “God’s Plan for Man,” Dake makes a startling claim that reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of omnipresence. He writes: “God is omni-present but not omni-body, that is, His presence can be felt by moral agents who are everywhere, but His body cannot be seen by them every place at the same time” (Dake, God’s Plan for Man, 61). This statement immediately reveals the problem: Dake has confused God’s presence with our perception of that presence.
Dake goes on to explain his position using a deeply flawed analogy. He writes: “Presence is governed by relationship, not bodily sight. For instance, one’s wife and children may be on the other side of the earth and the husband and father be conscious of their presence with him at all times, but this is not bodily presence. Thus it is with God and believers. They may be conscious of His presence at all times, but He is not bodily with them. As the husband would have to go to the other side of the earth to be bodily with his family, so God has to come from His throne in heaven to be bodily present with believers on earth” (Dake, God’s Plan for Man, 61-62).
This analogy reveals multiple layers of error in Dake’s thinking. First, he confuses emotional connection or psychological awareness with actual presence. When a husband thinks about his family on the other side of the world, they are not actually present with him—he is simply thinking about them, remembering them, feeling emotionally connected to them. But this is categorically different from actual presence. The husband cannot protect his family from danger on the other side of the world, cannot physically comfort them, cannot directly intervene in their circumstances. He is, in fact, absent from them, regardless of how strongly he might feel connected to them.
Second, Dake’s analogy assumes that God’s presence works the same way human presence does—that it is fundamentally bodily and spatial. This reveals his deeper error of making God into a kind of super-human being who happens to have special abilities but is still fundamentally limited by having a body that can only be in one place at a time. As he explicitly states elsewhere: “God has a body and goes from place to place like anybody else” (Dake, God’s Plan for Man, 57).
Dake’s commitment to this materialistic view of God is further demonstrated in his notes on the Dake Annotated Reference Bible. In his commentary on Ezekiel chapter 1, he writes: “God’s body is like that of a man, for man was created in His likeness and His image bodily… This entire description is one of the literal chariots of God on which He rides from place to place when He chooses. That He does ride upon the cherub is stated in 2 Sam. 22:11; Ps. 18:10. God also has many other means of travel and goes from one place to another bodily as all other beings in existence. He is omnipresent, but not omnibody.”1 This statement perfectly encapsulates Dake’s error: he acknowledges “omnipresence” with his lips while denying it with his theology.
Dake continues this theme when describing God’s physical body and its spatial limitations: “God goes from place to place in a body just like anyone else… He is omni-present, but not omni-body, that is, His presence can be felt everywhere but His body cannot… dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called Heaven… sits on a throne… walks… rides upon cherubs, the wind, clouds, and chariots drawn by cherubims and does do and can do anything that any other person can do bodily that is right and good.”5 Here we see Dake explicitly teaching that God, like any human being, must physically travel from location to location, whether by walking, riding on chariots, or other means of transportation. He makes God’s presence entirely dependent on God’s physical proximity, reducing the infinite Creator to the level of a finite creature.
Third, and perhaps most seriously, Dake makes God’s presence dependent on human consciousness and relationship. According to his teaching, unbelievers or believers who are not conscious of God are not actually in God’s presence. This would mean that an atheist is outside God’s presence, that a sleeping Christian is beyond God’s watching care, that someone in a coma is abandoned by God. The implications are staggering and thoroughly unbiblical.
Dake attempts to maintain that he believes in omnipresence while simultaneously denying its reality. He wants to say that God is omnipresent, but what he really means is that God’s influence or awareness can be felt everywhere by those who have a relationship with Him. This is not omnipresence at all—it is a kind of long-distance relationship with a God who remains physically located on His throne in heaven.
The Dake Annotated Reference Bible continues this error throughout its notes. For instance, in commenting on Psalm 139, which contains some of the clearest biblical teaching on God’s omnipresence, Dake consistently reinterprets the passages to fit his limited view. Where David declares, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?” (Psalm 139:7, NKJV), Dake’s notes suggest this refers only to God’s awareness or influence, not His actual presence.
This teaching creates a god who is more like a cosmic telephone operator than the omnipresent Lord revealed in Scripture—a god who can communicate over long distances and maintain emotional connections with His people, but who is not actually present with them. It is a god made in man’s image, limited by spatial constraints, dependent on physical form, and subject to the same kinds of limitations that we experience.
2. The Difference Between Objective and Subjective Presence
To understand why Dake’s teaching is so problematic, we must carefully distinguish between objective presence (what is actually real) and subjective presence (what we perceive or feel). This distinction is crucial for maintaining a biblical understanding of God’s omnipresence and avoiding the errors that Dake falls into.
Objective presence refers to actual reality—whether something or someone is truly present regardless of whether anyone perceives, acknowledges, or experiences that presence. For example, the air in a room is objectively present whether or not the people in the room are thinking about it or aware of it. A security camera recording a room captures objective presence—it shows what is actually there regardless of what anyone might feel or perceive.
Subjective presence, on the other hand, refers to our perception, awareness, or experience of presence. This is psychological and experiential. We might feel alone in a dark room even though others are present, or we might feel the presence of a loved one who has died even though they are objectively absent. Subjective presence is about our internal experience, not external reality.
The Bible consistently teaches that God’s omnipresence is objective, not subjective. God is actually present everywhere, whether or not anyone acknowledges, experiences, or feels that presence. Consider the powerful example of Jacob at Bethel. After his dream of the ladder reaching to heaven, Jacob exclaimed, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it” (Genesis 28:16, NKJV). Notice carefully what Jacob says: God was in that place even though Jacob did not know it. God’s presence was objective reality; Jacob’s awareness was subjective and initially lacking.
This biblical truth is reinforced throughout Scripture. When Elisha’s servant was terrified by the surrounding army, Elisha prayed, “LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see” (2 Kings 6:17, NKJV). When his eyes were opened, the servant saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire. These heavenly forces were objectively present before the servant could see them—his perception did not create their presence; it simply revealed what was already there.
The prophet Jeremiah records God’s own words about His presence: “Am I a God near at hand,” says the LORD, “And not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?” says the LORD; “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:23-24, NKJV). God does not say, “I can be felt in heaven and earth by those who have a relationship with me.” He says, “I fill heaven and earth.” This is objective statement about reality, not a subjective statement about possible experiences.
The Apostle Paul makes this same point in his sermon at the Areopagus: “He gives to all life, breath, and all things… so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:25-28, NKJV). Notice that Paul says God is “not far from each one of us”—not just believers, not just those who are aware of Him, but “each one of us,” including the pagan philosophers he was addressing. They lived, moved, and had their being in God whether they knew it or not.
This distinction between objective and subjective presence has enormous practical implications. If God’s presence is merely subjective, as Dake teaches, then:
– God is absent from those who don’t feel Him
– Our emotions become the measure of spiritual reality
– Depression or spiritual dryness means divine abandonment
– Unbelievers exist outside of God’s presence
– God cannot judge those He is not present with
– Prayer becomes uncertain—is God really there to hear?
But if God’s presence is objective, as the Bible teaches, then:
– God is present even when we don’t feel Him
– Reality, not emotion, is the foundation of faith
– Depression or spiritual dryness does not mean abandonment
– Unbelievers are in God’s presence and accountable to Him
– God can righteously judge all because He is present with all
– Prayer is always heard because God is always present
The Psalmist understood this objective reality when he wrote, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, Even there Your hand shall lead me, And Your right hand shall hold me” (Psalm 139:7-10, NKJV). This is not about feeling God’s presence; it is about the inescapable reality of God’s presence.
3. How Dake Reduces Divine Presence to Human Experience
Dake’s fundamental error lies in making God’s presence anthropocentric (human-centered) rather than theocentric (God-centered). In his system, divine presence becomes dependent on human consciousness, human relationships, and human experience. This represents a complete inversion of biblical teaching, which grounds God’s presence in His own nature and attributes rather than in our perception or experience.
Consider how Dake’s teaching makes God’s presence dependent on human factors. According to his analogy of the husband thinking about his distant family, God’s presence is:
1. Dependent on consciousness: Just as the husband must be thinking about his family to feel their “presence,” so humans must be conscious of God for His presence to be real to them. But what happens when someone is unconscious? Is a person in a coma outside God’s presence? What about someone sleeping? Or what about a baby who has no conscious awareness of God? Dake’s system provides no satisfactory answers.
2. Variable based on relationship: In Dake’s teaching, those who have a relationship with God can experience His presence, while those who don’t cannot. This makes God’s presence contingent on human response. But the Bible teaches that God sends rain on the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45), that He is kind to the unthankful and evil (Luke 6:35), and that in Him even unbelievers live and move and have their being (Acts 17:28).
Dake explicitly makes presence dependent on both relationship and human knowledge: “Thus, presence is governed by relationship and knowledge as well as bodily sight. Men who do not know God seldom, if ever, feel His presence. They never do except as their creative spirit begins to think of where they came from, why they are here, and where they are going… They do not really realize and feel His presence, though, until they get to know about Him and begin to conform to His will. Then the presence of God becomes a reality and they can feel Him everywhere they go. The more one thinks of God and lives for Him, the more His presence is manifest in the conscience.”6 Here we see that according to Dake, God’s presence is not a constant reality but a variable experience dependent entirely on human factors: knowledge, conformity to God’s will, thinking about God, and living for Him.
3. Limited by human capacity: Human beings have a limited capacity for awareness and relationship. We can only maintain so many relationships, only be conscious of so much at once. If God’s presence works the same way, then it too would be limited by these human constraints. This reduces God to operating within human categories and limitations.
4. Subject to human emotional states: We all know that our sense of others’ presence varies with our emotional state. When depressed, we might feel alone even in a crowd. When happy, we might feel connected to distant loved ones. If God’s presence works this way, then it becomes hostage to human emotions and psychological states.
Dake makes his position crystal clear in his Annotated Reference Bible’s index entry on “Omnipresent,” where he writes: “Omnipresence then, is different from omnibody, and is governed by relationship and knowledge of God. Like the presence of someone being felt by another who is thousands of miles away, so it is with the presence of God among men (1 Cor. 5:3-4).”2 This statement perfectly captures the error: Dake explicitly defines omnipresence not as God being actually present everywhere, but as a feeling of presence governed by relationship—exactly like thinking about a distant family member.
The Bible presents a radically different picture. God’s presence is grounded in His own infinite, unchangeable nature. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states: “God is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty” (WCF 2.1). Notice that God’s immensity (His infinite presence) is listed among His essential attributes, not as something dependent on human recognition or relationship.
Scripture consistently presents God’s presence as a fact that humans must reckon with, not a possibility that humans might achieve through relationship or consciousness. When Jonah tried to flee from God’s presence, he discovered the impossibility of his task. God didn’t become present with Jonah because Jonah recognized Him; rather, Jonah was forced to recognize that God had been present all along—in the ship, in the storm, in the great fish, everywhere.
Similarly, when Hagar fled into the wilderness, she discovered that God saw her even there and exclaimed, “You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees” (Genesis 16:13, NKJV). God’s presence with her was not dependent on her awareness; rather, her awareness was awakened to the reality of God’s presence.
The prophet Amos delivers God’s warning to those who think they can escape divine presence: “Though they dig into hell, from there My hand shall take them; though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down; and though they hide themselves on top of Carmel, from there I will search and take them; though they hide from My sight at the bottom of the sea, from there I will command the serpent, and it shall bite them” (Amos 9:2-3, NKJV). This is not the language of subjective, felt presence, but of objective, inescapable reality.
By reducing divine presence to human experience, Dake has committed what theologians call the anthropomorphic fallacy—the error of making God in man’s image rather than recognizing that man is made in God’s image. This reversal has catastrophic theological consequences, as it makes God subject to human limitations rather than transcendent over them.
4. Biblical Refutation of Subjective Omnipresence
The Bible provides overwhelming evidence against Dake’s subjective view of omnipresence. From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture testifies to the objective reality of God’s presence everywhere, regardless of human awareness, relationship, or feeling. Let us examine key biblical passages that definitively refute the idea that God’s presence is merely felt or subjective.
The Case of Jonah: Fleeing from Objective Presence
The book of Jonah provides one of the clearest refutations of subjective omnipresence. “But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD” (Jonah 1:3, NKJV). If God’s presence were merely subjective or felt, Jonah’s flight might have succeeded. He could have simply stopped thinking about God, ended his relationship with Him, and thus escaped His presence. But the narrative demonstrates the impossibility of fleeing from God’s objective presence.
God pursued Jonah not because Jonah maintained a conscious relationship with Him, but because God is actually present everywhere. The LORD hurled a great wind on the sea (Jonah 1:4), prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah (Jonah 1:17), and later prepared a plant, a worm, and a vehement east wind (Jonah 4:6-8). These were not acts of long-distance manipulation by a God sitting on a throne in heaven; they were the acts of a God who is present and active throughout His creation.
Even more telling is Jonah’s prayer from the belly of the fish: “I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your sight; yet I will look again toward Your holy temple'” (Jonah 2:4, NKJV). Jonah thought he was cast out of God’s sight, yet he was praying to God from the belly of a fish in the depths of the sea! His subjective feeling of abandonment did not match the objective reality of God’s presence with him.
Psalm 139: The Inescapability of Divine Presence
Psalm 139 stands as perhaps the most comprehensive biblical statement on God’s omnipresence, and it thoroughly refutes any notion of merely subjective divine presence. David begins with God’s omniscience: “O LORD, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off” (Psalm 139:1-2, NKJV). This knowledge is not dependent on David’s awareness or consent; it is simply fact.
Then David explicitly addresses the impossibility of escaping God’s presence: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?” (Psalm 139:7, NKJV). The rhetorical question expects the answer: nowhere. David then provides a comprehensive list of places where one might attempt to escape God’s presence, only to affirm that God is present in each one:
“If I ascend into heaven, You are there” (v. 8a)—God is present in the highest heights.
“If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there” (v. 8b)—God is present even in Sheol, the realm of the dead.
“If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea” (v. 9)—God is present in the most remote locations.
“Even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me” (v. 10)—Not just present, but actively involved.
David continues: “If I say, ‘Surely the darkness shall fall on me,’ even the night shall be light about me; indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You” (Psalm 139:11-12, NKJV). Darkness cannot hide anyone from God’s presence. This is not about whether David feels God’s presence in the darkness; it’s about the objective fact that darkness provides no concealment from God.
If Dake were correct that presence is governed by relationship and consciousness, then David’s psalm makes no sense. One could simply end the relationship, lose consciousness of God, and successfully flee from His presence. But David knows this is impossible because God’s presence is not dependent on human factors.
God’s Presence in Hell
One of the most challenging aspects of God’s omnipresence for Dake’s system is the biblical teaching that God is present even in hell. David explicitly states, “If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there” (Psalm 139:8, NKJV). The word translated “hell” here is Sheol, the realm of the dead, the place of punishment and separation from God’s blessing.
Revelation confirms this truth in describing the fate of those who worship the beast: “He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (Revelation 14:10, NKJV). The torment occurs “in the presence of the Lamb”—Christ is present even in the place of judgment.
This creates an insurmountable problem for Dake’s view. Those in hell certainly have no positive relationship with God. They are not conscious of God in any comforting way. According to Dake’s teaching, they should be outside God’s presence entirely. Yet Scripture affirms that God is present even there, though His presence brings judgment rather than comfort.
God’s Presence with the Wicked
The Bible repeatedly affirms that God is present with the wicked, not just the righteous. This directly contradicts Dake’s claim that presence is governed by relationship. Consider these passages:
“The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3, NKJV). Notice it says “evil and the good,” not just the good. God’s watchful presence extends to the evil as well.
“For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and He ponders all his paths” (Proverbs 5:21, NKJV). This refers to all humans, not just believers. The adulterer mentioned in the context thinks he acts in secret, but he is always before God’s eyes.
“‘Can anyone hide himself in secret places, so I shall not see him?’ says the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:24, NKJV). The implied answer is no—no one can hide from God’s presence, regardless of their relationship with Him.
Amos describes God’s inescapable presence even for His enemies: “Though they dig into hell, from there My hand shall take them; though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down” (Amos 9:2, NKJV). These are not people in relationship with God; they are fleeing from Him in judgment. Yet His presence extends even to them.
The Universal Reach of God’s Presence
Paul’s sermon at Athens provides crucial teaching on God’s universal presence: “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:26-28, NKJV).
Paul is addressing pagan philosophers who do not know the true God, yet he says God is “not far from each one of us” and that “in Him we live and move and have our being.” This is not conditional language—Paul doesn’t say “if you believe” or “if you have a relationship with Him.” It is a statement of fact about all human beings.
The phrase “in Him we live and move and have our being” is particularly significant. Our very existence depends on God’s presence. We don’t just feel His presence; we exist within it. This is ontological (related to being itself), not merely psychological or relational.
5. The Danger of Experience-Based Theology
Dake’s reduction of God’s omnipresence to felt presence represents a broader and extremely dangerous trend in modern Christianity: the shift from objective, Scripture-based theology to subjective, experience-based theology. This shift has profound implications for how we understand God, read the Bible, and live the Christian life.
When Feelings Become the Foundation
When we make human experience the measure of divine reality, we build our theology on shifting sand. Human feelings are notoriously unreliable. They change with our circumstances, our health, our brain chemistry, and countless other factors. Consider these common experiences:
– A believer going through depression may feel completely abandoned by God
– Someone in the midst of worship may feel God’s presence intensely
– A person committing sin might feel no divine presence at all
– A mystic might claim to feel God’s presence in ways others don’t
If Dake is correct that presence is about feeling and relationship, then we must conclude that God abandons the depressed believer, is more present in the worship service, is absent when we sin, and is specially present with mystics. But this makes God’s presence as variable and unreliable as human emotion.
The Bible presents a very different picture. When Elijah was depressed and suicidal, fleeing to the wilderness and asking God to take his life (1 Kings 19:4), God was still present with him, providing food, water, and eventually speaking to him in a still small voice. Elijah’s feelings of abandonment did not reflect the reality of God’s presence.
When David sinned with Bathsheba, he was still in God’s presence—that’s why Nathan could confront him with the words, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7, NKJV). David’s lack of awareness of God during his sin did not mean God was absent.
The Slide into Subjectivism and Relativism
Experience-based theology inevitably leads to subjectivism—the belief that truth is determined by individual experience rather than objective reality. If God’s presence is felt differently by different people, then whose experience is correct? The mystic who claims constant divine presence? The rationalist who never feels anything? The emotional worshiper who has intense experiences? The steady believer who rarely feels anything special?
This subjectivism quickly becomes relativism—the belief that truth varies from person to person. “God is present for me in this way” becomes the standard, rather than “God is present, period.” This opens the door to all sorts of theological errors:
– Syncretism: “I feel God’s presence in Buddhist meditation, so that must be valid”
– Universalism: “I feel God loves everyone the same way, so all are saved”
– Antinomianism: “I don’t feel convicted about this sin, so it must be okay”
– Mysticism: “My feelings of God’s presence are more real than Scripture”
The Apostle Paul warned against this very danger: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4, NKJV). When experience becomes the standard, people seek teachings that validate their experiences rather than submitting their experiences to biblical truth.
The Loss of Objective Truth
Once we ground theology in experience rather than revelation, we lose any objective standard for truth. The Bible becomes a book of suggestions that we test against our experience rather than the authoritative Word of God that judges our experiences. This is exactly backward from how the Reformers understood the relationship between Scripture and experience.
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) insists that the Bible, not human experience, is the final authority for faith and practice. Our experiences must be interpreted in light of Scripture, not the other way around. As Isaiah declared, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20, NKJV).
When we make experience the standard, we also lose the ability to correct error. If someone claims to feel God’s presence while engaging in unbiblical practices, on what basis can we correct them if feeling is the measure of presence? If a cult leader claims special felt presence from God, how can we refute them if subjective experience determines reality?
The Door to Deception
Experience-based theology opens wide the door to spiritual deception. Paul warns, “For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14, NKJV). Deceptive spiritual experiences can feel very real and very powerful. If feeling determines truth, then people become vulnerable to every form of spiritual deception.
Jesus warned about this danger: “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24, NKJV). Notice that these false prophets will “show great signs and wonders”—they will provide powerful experiences. If experience is our standard, we will be deceived.
This is why John commands us to “test the spirits, whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1, NKJV). How do we test them? Not by how they make us feel, but by whether they confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2) and whether their teaching aligns with apostolic doctrine.
The Tragedy of Conditional Comfort
Perhaps the most tragic consequence of experience-based omnipresence is that it robs believers of comfort precisely when they need it most. Those going through dark nights of the soul, those battling depression, those whose feelings are numbed by trauma or medication—according to Dake’s teaching, these dear souls are outside God’s presence because they cannot feel Him.
But the Bible offers far better comfort. Even when we cannot feel God, He is there. “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5, NKJV) is not a promise about feelings but about fact. “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, NKJV) is not conditional on our awareness but is Christ’s unconditional promise.
The Psalmist understood this when he wrote, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me” (Psalm 23:4, NKJV). Notice he doesn’t say, “I feel You with me.” In the darkest valley, when death’s shadow blocks all light and feeling, the fact remains: “You are with me.”
6. God’s Presence with Unbelievers
One of the most serious problems with Dake’s teaching is its implications for God’s presence with unbelievers. If presence is governed by relationship, as Dake claims, then those who have no relationship with God must be outside His presence. This would mean that the vast majority of humanity exists in a God-forsaken realm, beyond His reach, outside His immediate knowledge, and removed from His direct action. The biblical and theological problems with this position are enormous.
Common Grace Requires Divine Presence
The doctrine of common grace teaches that God bestows certain blessings on all humanity, not just believers. Jesus explicitly taught this: “He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45, NKJV). But how can God actively bless those with whom He is not present? How can He cause the sun to rise on the evil if He is not present with them to act on their behalf?
Consider all the ways God’s common grace operates in the lives of unbelievers:
– He gives them life and breath (Acts 17:25)
– He provides food and gladness (Acts 14:17)
– He establishes governments for their good (Romans 13:1-4)
– He restrains evil that would destroy them (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
– He gives them talents and abilities (Exodus 31:6)
– He maintains the natural order they depend on (Genesis 8:22)
None of these gracious acts could occur if God were not present with unbelievers. A distant God, located only in heaven, connected to unbelievers only through some kind of “felt presence” they don’t even experience, could not actively sustain their lives moment by moment. As Paul told the pagan Athenians, “He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:27-28, NKJV).
Judgment Requires Presence
The Bible clearly teaches that God will judge all people, believers and unbelievers alike. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:10, NKJV), and “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27, NKJV). But just judgment requires accurate knowledge, and accurate knowledge requires presence.
How could God justly judge those with whom He is not present? Consider what judgment requires:
– Complete knowledge of their actions: “For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14, NKJV)
– Understanding of their thoughts: “The Lord knows the thoughts of man” (Psalm 94:11, NKJV)
– Awareness of their words: “For every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment” (Matthew 12:36, NKJV)
– Knowledge of their motives: “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts” (1 Corinthians 4:5, NKJV)
If God is not present with unbelievers, He cannot have this comprehensive knowledge necessary for just judgment. He would be like a judge trying to rule on a case based on secondhand reports rather than direct evidence. But Scripture assures us that “all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13, NKJV).
Providence for All Creation
God’s providential care extends to all creation, not just believers. Jesus taught that not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the Father’s will (Matthew 10:29). The Psalmist declares that God “gives to the beast its food, and to the young ravens that cry” (Psalm 147:9, NKJV). This universal providence requires universal presence.
Consider the scope of God’s providential care:
“These all wait for You, that You may give them their food in due season. What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good. You hide Your face, they are troubled; You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth” (Psalm 104:27-30, NKJV).
This passage describes God’s active involvement with all creatures, most of which have no capacity for relationship with God in Dake’s sense. Yet God feeds them, sustains them, and renews them. This requires His presence, not some long-distance management from a throne in heaven.
No One Beyond God’s Reach
Scripture emphatically declares that no one is beyond God’s reach. This is both a warning to the wicked and a comfort to those concerned for the lost. Consider these powerful statements:
“Though they dig into hell, from there My hand shall take them; though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down; and though they hide themselves on top of Carmel, from there I will search and take them; though they hide from My sight at the bottom of the sea, from there I will command the serpent, and it shall bite them” (Amos 9:2-3, NKJV).
This is not the language of a God who is only present with those in relationship with Him. This is a God from whom no one can hide, no matter how hard they try or how far they run.
Paul makes this same point in Romans: “What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God'” (Romans 3:9-11, NKJV). If none seek after God, and if God’s presence depends on relationship and seeking, then God would be present with no one. Yet Paul goes on to explain how God reaches out to these very people who don’t seek Him, demonstrating that He is present to act in their lives.
The Conviction of Sin
Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit would “convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8, NKJV). The “world” here refers to unbelievers, those outside of relationship with God. How can the Spirit convict those with whom He is not present?
We see this conviction at work throughout Scripture. When Paul preached to Felix about righteousness, self-control, and judgment, “Felix was afraid” (Acts 24:25, NKJV). Felix was not a believer, had no relationship with God in Dake’s sense, yet he experienced the convicting presence of the Holy Spirit. This would be impossible if God’s presence were limited to those in relationship with Him.
7. Special Presence vs. Essential Presence
To properly understand God’s omnipresence and correct Dake’s errors, we must distinguish between God’s essential presence (which is universal and unconditional) and His special presence (which involves particular manifestations or relationships). This distinction, recognized throughout church history, allows us to affirm both God’s universal presence and the unique ways He relates to His people without falling into Dake’s error of denying true omnipresence.
Essential Presence: God’s Universal Reality
God’s essential presence refers to His actual being present everywhere by virtue of His infinite nature. This is not a presence that comes and goes, increases or decreases, or depends on any creaturely conditions. It is as essential to God as His existence itself. As the Puritan theologian Stephen Charnock wrote: “God is essentially everywhere; not only in regard of his substance, but in regard of his knowledge, power, and providence” (Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God, 1:371).
This essential presence is what the Psalmist refers to when he asks, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?” (Psalm 139:7, NKJV). It is what Jeremiah means when he records God’s words: “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jeremiah 23:24, NKJV). It is what Paul means when he says that in God “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28, NKJV).
Essential presence means that:
– God is wholly present at every point in space
– His presence does not admit of degrees—He is not more present in one place than another
– His presence is not divided—all of God is present everywhere
– His presence is not limited by physical barriers or spiritual conditions
– His presence is constant and unchanging
This essential presence is what makes God’s other attributes effective throughout creation. His omniscience (all-knowing) depends on His omnipresence—He knows all because He is present to all. His omnipotence (all-powerful) is effective everywhere because He is present everywhere to act.
Special Presence: God’s Relational Manifestations
While God is essentially present everywhere, Scripture also speaks of God being present in special ways in particular places or with specific people. This special presence does not mean God is more essentially present, but rather that He manifests His presence differently or relates differently in these instances. Consider these biblical examples:
Covenantal Presence with Believers: God promises a special presence to His people: “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20, NKJV). This doesn’t mean Christ is absent when believers are alone or that He is not present where unbelievers gather. Rather, it means He is present in a special, covenantal way when His people gather in His name.
Similarly, Jesus promised His disciples: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, NKJV). This is a promise of special, empowering presence for the mission of making disciples. It doesn’t mean Jesus is not present with non-disciples, but that He is specially present with His disciples for this purpose.
Dake, however, misapplies these special presence texts to deny essential omnipresence: “In this sense Jesus Himself, who has a flesh and bone body and who is local in body—one place at a time, is with all men everywhere even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:19-20). In this same sense Paul was with the Corinthians in spirit when they delivered the fornicator to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor. 5:1-8). In this sense, Paul and other believers dwelled in each other regardless of personal bodily distance from each other (2 Cor. 7:3; Phil. 1:7). We know that the personal body of Christ, or those of believers, are not omnipresent when they are in the lives of others in spirit presence, so the same thing is true of the Father and the Holy Spirit.”7 Here Dake confuses Christ’s special presence with believers (a real promise) with His essential omnipresence as God (an unchanging reality), using the former to deny the latter.
Temple Presence in the Old Testament: God manifested His special presence in the tabernacle and temple. When Solomon dedicated the temple, “the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD” (1 Kings 8:11, NKJV). This was a special manifestation of God’s presence, not the beginning of His presence there. As Solomon himself acknowledged: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27, NKJV).
The Shekinah glory in the temple was a visible manifestation of God’s special presence, but God was not confined to the temple. He remained omnipresent even while specially manifesting His glory in one location.
Incarnational Presence in Christ: The supreme example of special presence is the incarnation. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14, NKJV). In Christ, “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9, NKJV). This is absolutely unique—God the Son took on human nature and was present as a man in a way that was spatially located.
Yet even during the incarnation, the Son’s divine nature remained omnipresent. As Jesus told Nicodemus: “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13, NKJV, with textual variant). Even while on earth in His human nature, the Son remained in heaven in His divine nature.
Spiritual Presence in the Church: The Holy Spirit indwells believers in a special way. “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16, NKJV). This indwelling is a special presence that non-believers do not experience. Yet the Spirit remains omnipresent, convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8).
The Crucial Distinction
The key point is that special presence is not the absence of God elsewhere but the unique manifestation or relational presence of God in particular places or with particular people. When God specially manifests His presence in one place, He does not leave another place. When He enters into covenant relationship with His people, He does not cease to be present with the rest of creation.
This is where Dake goes seriously wrong. He takes biblical language about God’s special presence and interprets it to mean that God is not essentially present everywhere. When the Bible speaks of God “coming down” or “visiting” or being “with” His people in special ways, Dake interprets this as God traveling from one location to another, leaving one place to come to another.
But the biblical authors, writing under divine inspiration, understood the distinction between essential and special presence. When Isaiah saw the Lord “sitting on a throne, high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1, NKJV), he also heard the seraphim crying, “The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3, NKJV). God was specially manifested on His throne while remaining essentially present throughout the earth.
When God “came down” to see the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:5) or to deliver Israel from Egypt (Exodus 3:8), this was not a change in His essential presence but a special manifestation of His presence for judgment or deliverance. As John Calvin explained: “When God is said to descend, we are not to understand it as if he actually moved, for he fills heaven and earth; but the Scripture accommodates itself to our capacity” (Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 11:5).
8. Correcting Dake’s Errors: Returning to Biblical Truth
Having examined the depths of Dake’s error and its dangerous implications, we must now clearly articulate the biblical truth about God’s omnipresence. This is not merely an academic exercise but a vital necessity for the health of the church and the comfort of believers. When we correct Dake’s errors, we’re not simply winning a theological argument; we’re restoring a biblical understanding of God that profoundly affects worship, prayer, evangelism, and daily Christian living.
God Is Objectively Present Everywhere
The fundamental truth that Dake misses is that God is actually, objectively present everywhere in His creation. This is not a metaphor, not a feeling, not a relationship dynamic, but an ontological fact about reality. As A.W. Tozer powerfully stated: “God is everywhere here, close to everything, next to everyone” (Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 76).
This means that:
– There is no place in the universe where God is not fully present
– No barrier can exclude Him—not walls, not distance, not even dimensional boundaries
– No condition can nullify His presence—not sin, not unbelief, not ignorance
– No being exists outside His presence—not demons, not the lost, not Satan himself
– No moment occurs without His presence—past, present, or future
This objective presence is taught throughout Scripture. When Solomon dedicated the temple, he acknowledged: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You” (1 Kings 8:27, NKJV). The Hebrew word for “contain” here means to hold or comprehend. Solomon understood that the infinite God cannot be contained in any finite space, no matter how vast.
Our Awareness Doesn’t Determine His Presence
One of the most important corrections to Dake’s teaching is recognizing that our awareness or lack of awareness does not determine whether God is present. God was present with Jacob at Bethel before Jacob realized it. God was present with the disciples on the road to Emmaus before their eyes were opened. God is present with every unbeliever even though they don’t acknowledge Him.
This truth has profound implications:
For the struggling believer: You may not feel God’s presence, but He is there. Depression, doubt, or spiritual dryness doesn’t drive Him away. As Charles Spurgeon, who himself battled severe depression, wrote: “God is too good to be unkind and He is too wise to be mistaken. And when we cannot trace His hand, we must trust His heart” (cited in Piper, The Hidden Smile of God, 163).
For the confident sinner: You may not acknowledge God’s presence, but He is there. Your denial doesn’t create a God-free zone where you can sin without consequence. “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3, NKJV).
For the seeking soul: You may be groping after God, feeling like He’s far away, but He is near. “He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27, NKJV). Your search for God is possible because He is already present with you, drawing you to Himself.
For the missionary: You’re not bringing God to unreached places; He’s already there. You’re announcing His presence and calling people to recognize and respond to the God who has always been near to them. As Paul told the Athenians about their “unknown god”: “Him I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23, NKJV)—not “Him I bring to you.”
Relationship Enhances Experience, Not Reality
While Dake wrongly makes God’s presence dependent on relationship, we must acknowledge that relationship with God does affect our experience of His presence. Believers do experience God’s presence in ways that unbelievers do not. But this is about the quality and character of the experience, not about whether God is actually present.
Consider the analogy of the sun. The sun shines on both the seeing and the blind. Its light and warmth are objectively present for both. But only those with sight can appreciate the beauty of the sunshine. Only those with healthy eyes can fully experience what the sun offers. The blind person’s inability to see the sun doesn’t mean the sun isn’t shining on them.
Similarly, God is present with all, but only those in relationship with Him through Christ experience His presence as comfort rather than judgment, as love rather than wrath, as Father rather than Judge. As Paul writes: “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14, NKJV).
This means that:
– Believers can experience God’s comforting presence: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me” (Psalm 23:4, NKJV)
– Believers can enjoy fellowship with God’s presence: “Truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3, NKJV)
– Believers can be transformed by God’s presence: “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image” (2 Corinthians 3:18, NKJV)
– Believers can be empowered by God’s presence: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13, NKJV)
But none of these special experiences of God’s presence mean that He is not also present with unbelievers. The difference is qualitative (the nature of the experience) not quantitative (whether He is present or not).
Biblical Balance Needed
In correcting Dake’s errors, we must maintain biblical balance. We must avoid two extremes:
1. The error of pantheism: Making God identical with creation so that everything is God. The Bible maintains a clear Creator-creature distinction. God is present in His creation but distinct from it. He is transcendent (above and beyond creation) as well as immanent (present within creation).
2. The error of deism: Making God so transcendent that He’s not involved with creation. Some, in reaction to errors like Dake’s, might swing to the opposite extreme and make God so “wholly other” that He seems distant and uninvolved.
The biblical balance is found in passages like Isaiah 57:15: “For thus says the High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: ‘I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit.'” God is both “high and lofty” (transcendent) and “with him who has a contrite and humble spirit” (immanent).
We must also maintain the balance between God’s essential omnipresence (He is everywhere) and His special presence (He manifests Himself uniquely in certain places and relationships). When we gather for worship, we can truly say God is specially present, while also acknowledging He is not absent elsewhere. When we pray, we can know God draws near to us in a special way, while understanding He was never far away.
9. The Practical Impact of True Omnipresence
Understanding God’s true omnipresence as opposed to Dake’s “felt presence” heresy has profound practical implications for every aspect of Christian life. This is not merely theoretical theology but truth that should transform how we live, pray, worship, and witness. Let us explore the practical differences between living according to biblical omnipresence versus Dake’s subjective presence.
For Prayer: Confidence vs. Uncertainty
If Dake is correct and God’s presence depends on felt relationship, then prayer becomes an uncertain exercise. Is God really there to hear? If I don’t feel His presence, are my prayers reaching Him? Must God travel from heaven to hear me? These uncertainties can cripple prayer life.
But biblical omnipresence gives us absolute confidence in prayer. God is always present to hear. As the Psalmist declares: “O You who hear prayer, to You all flesh will come” (Psalm 65:2, NKJV). Notice it doesn’t say “all who feel Your presence will come” but “all flesh will come.” God hears because He is present.
This truth means:
– We can pray anywhere: “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere” (1 Timothy 2:8, NKJV)
– We can pray anytime: “Evening and morning and at noon I will pray” (Psalm 55:17, NKJV)
– We can pray in any condition: Even Jonah from the fish’s belly (Jonah 2:1)
– We can pray with confidence: “This is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us” (1 John 5:14, NKJV)
Consider the difference in hospital rooms around the world right now. According to Dake, only those patients who “feel” God’s presence can be confident their prayers are heard. But according to Scripture, every prayer from every hospital bed rises to God’s throne because He is present in every room.
For Comfort: Constant Presence vs. Conditional Feeling
One of the cruelest aspects of Dake’s teaching is that it robs suffering Christians of comfort precisely when they need it most. Those in deep depression, those whose feelings are numbed by medication, those in the dark night of the soul—according to Dake, these dear ones are outside God’s presence because they cannot feel Him.
But biblical omnipresence offers unshakeable comfort. When David declares, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me” (Psalm 23:4, NKJV), he doesn’t base his comfort on feeling God’s presence in that dark valley. He bases it on the fact: “You are with me.”
This means believers can take comfort knowing:
– In loneliness: “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5, NKJV) is fact, not feeling
– In suffering: “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you” (Isaiah 43:2, NKJV) is promise, not possibility
– In death: “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints” (Psalm 116:15, NKJV) because He is present with them
– In confusion: Even when we cannot trace God’s hand, He is still there
Amy Carmichael, missionary to India who spent the last twenty years of her life bedridden after an accident, understood this truth. She wrote: “In acceptance lieth peace.” She couldn’t always feel God’s presence through the pain, but she knew He was there. That knowledge, not feeling, sustained her.
For Holiness: Constant Accountability vs. Occasional Awareness
If God’s presence depends on our awareness and relationship, as Dake teaches, then we might imagine we can sin in God’s absence. When we don’t feel His presence, we might think we’re free from His sight. This is deadly to holiness.
But biblical omnipresence means we are always in God’s sight, always accountable, always seen. “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3, NKJV). This constant divine presence should promote holiness:
– Secret sins are not secret: “You have set our iniquities before You, our secret sins in the light of Your countenance” (Psalm 90:8, NKJV)
– Private thoughts are public to God: “You understand my thought afar off” (Psalm 139:2, NKJV)
– Hidden deeds are seen: “For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known” (Luke 12:2, NKJV)
– Dark places are light to Him: “The darkness shall not hide from You” (Psalm 139:12, NKJV)
Joseph understood this when tempted by Potiphar’s wife. He didn’t ask whether God was watching; he knew He was: “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9, NKJV). God’s presence was not a feeling but a fact that governed his behavior.
For Worship: Global Reality vs. Localized Experience
Dake’s view creates problems for corporate worship. If God must travel from place to place, how can He receive simultaneous worship from churches around the globe? Is He more present in larger gatherings? Does He have to choose which services to attend?
Biblical omnipresence assures us that God receives all worship everywhere simultaneously. Jesus promised: “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20, NKJV). This is not a minimum attendance requirement but an assurance of presence regardless of size.
This means:
– Every worship service has God’s presence, from megachurches to house churches
– Simultaneous services worldwide all enjoy His presence
– Private worship is as valid as public: “When you pray, go into your room” (Matthew 6:6, NKJV)
– No earthly sanctuary contains Him: “The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands” (Acts 7:48, NKJV)
For Evangelism: He’s Already There
If Dake is correct, missionaries must somehow bring God’s presence to unreached areas. Evangelism becomes not just announcing the gospel but somehow establishing God’s presence where He wasn’t before. This is both unbiblical and impossible.
But biblical omnipresence means God is already present everywhere we go with the gospel. Paul told the pagan Athenians that God was already near to them: “He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27, NKJV). Our task is not to bring God to people but to announce His presence and call them to respond.
This transforms evangelism:
– God is already at work where we witness: “My Father has been working until now” (John 5:17, NKJV)
– God is already convicting those we speak to: The Spirit convicts the world (John 16:8)
– God is already sustaining those we reach: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28, NKJV)
– God is already revealed in creation: “His invisible attributes are clearly seen” (Romans 1:20, NKJV)
For Assurance: Objective Promise vs. Subjective Feeling
Perhaps nowhere is the practical difference more crucial than in the area of assurance. If God’s presence depends on our feeling and relationship, then our assurance is only as strong as our current emotional state. Bad days mean divine abandonment. Struggles mean separation.
But biblical omnipresence grounds our assurance in God’s unchanging nature, not our variable feelings. Paul’s great declaration makes this clear: “For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39, NKJV).
Notice Paul doesn’t include “feelings” in his list because even feeling separated doesn’t create actual separation. God’s presence with His people is based on His promise, not our perception.
10. Historical Theology’s Witness Against Dake
Dake’s teaching about God’s omnipresence does not stand in isolation as merely one interpretation among many valid options. Rather, it stands condemned by the united witness of orthodox Christian theology throughout history. From the early church fathers through the Reformers to contemporary evangelical theologians, the church has consistently affirmed God’s true omnipresence and rejected the kind of limited, subjective presence that Dake teaches.
The Early Church Fathers
The early church fathers, writing in the first centuries after the apostles, clearly affirmed God’s omnipresence. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) wrote: “For He is the searcher of the thoughts and desires; His breath is in us, and when He wills, He will take it away” (First Epistle of Clement, 21). This indicates God’s immediate presence with all people, not a distant deity who must travel to be present.
Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) explicitly rejected the idea that God is spatially limited: “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” (Against Heresies, 2.13.3). A God who must travel from place to place would have the “diverse members” that Irenaeus denies.
Athanasius (c. 296-373 AD), the great defender of orthodox Christology, wrote extensively about God’s omnipresence: “For He does not exist in a place, but rather all places exist in Him…He is outside all things according to His essence, but in all things through His loving-kindness and power” (Against the Heathen, 45). This carefully maintains both God’s transcendence and His omnipresence.
Augustine’s Profound Understanding
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) perhaps gave the most thorough treatment of God’s omnipresence in the early church. In his Confessions, he wrestles with understanding God’s presence and concludes: “You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for You…You were with me, but I was not with You” (Confessions, 10.27.38). Augustine recognized that God’s presence is objective and constant; it was his own awareness that was lacking.
In his work On the Trinity, Augustine explicitly refutes anything like Dake’s position: “God is not diffused through space by size so that half of Him should be in half of the world and half in the other half of it. He is wholly present in all of it in such a way as to be wholly in heaven alone and wholly on earth alone, and wholly in heaven and earth together” (De Trinitate, 6.7). This is precisely what Dake denies when he insists God has a body that can only be in one place.
Medieval Scholastic Precision
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the great scholastic theologian, brought philosophical precision to the doctrine of omnipresence. In his Summa Theologica, he writes: “God is in all things, not indeed as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works…Hence it must be that God is in all things, and innermostly” (Summa Theologica, I, Q.8, A.1).
Aquinas carefully distinguishes between different modes of presence while maintaining God’s essential omnipresence: “God is in all things by His presence, power and substance” (ST I, Q.8, A.3). This threefold presence means God knows all (presence), can act everywhere (power), and sustains all in being (substance).
The Protestant Reformers
The Protestant Reformers unanimously affirmed God’s omnipresence against any form of limitation. Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote powerfully about God’s presence: “God is substantially present in all creatures, even in the smallest leaf of a tree…God is entirely and personally present in the wilderness, in the garden, in the field” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 37, p. 60).
John Calvin (1509-1564) was equally clear: “When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is incomprehensible, and that His greatness is boundless. From this it follows that His essence is simple and indivisible, and that He is everywhere whole and entire, not divided” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.1). Calvin explicitly rejects the idea that God has a body that travels from place to place.
The Reformed confessions codified this teaching. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) declares: “God is a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal” (WCF 2.1). The term “immense” here means unlimited by space—exactly what Dake denies.
The London Baptist Confession (1689) uses identical language, showing that both Presbyterian and Baptist traditions firmly rejected any limitation of God’s presence.
Puritan Clarity
The Puritans gave extensive attention to God’s attributes, including omnipresence. Stephen Charnock’s masterwork The Existence and Attributes of God devotes a lengthy discourse to omnipresence. He writes: “God is necessarily present in every place…This necessary presence of God in all places, is not a presence of any bodily quality, or of a body…but it is an immense and indivisible presence” (Charnock, Existence and Attributes, 1:370).
Charnock explicitly addresses and refutes positions like Dake’s: “If He were in one place, and not in another, He would be limited; if He were in all places, and not wholly in all, He would be divided” (1:371). This is precisely the error Dake commits—making God limited to one place (heaven) and thus denying His infinity.
Later Evangelical Witness
Moving into the modern era, evangelical theologians have continued to affirm true omnipresence. Charles Hodge (1797-1878), the great Princeton theologian, wrote: “The omnipresence of God is the fact that God is everywhere present. This is not to be understood as merely His ability to be anywhere, but His actual presence everywhere” (Systematic Theology, 1:382).
A.W. Tozer (1897-1963), whose book The Knowledge of the Holy has influenced countless evangelicals, directly addresses errors like Dake’s: “The doctrine of the divine omnipresence decides this forever. God is everywhere here, close to everything, next to everyone. ‘The Lord is near to all who call upon Him'” (Tozer, Knowledge, 76).
J.I. Packer, in his modern classic Knowing God, affirms: “God is not absent from any part of His creation, nor more present in one place than in another…He is everywhere actively upholding all things in being” (Packer, Knowing God, 86).
The Consistent Witness
This brief survey shows that Dake’s teaching stands condemned by the united witness of orthodox Christianity. Whether we examine the early fathers, medieval scholastics, Protestant Reformers, Puritans, or modern evangelicals, we find unanimous affirmation that:
– God does not have a body that limits His presence
– God is wholly present everywhere, not partially present or merely influential
– God’s presence is objective reality, not subjective feeling
– God’s presence is essential to His nature, not dependent on relationship
Dake’s position is not a legitimate alternative interpretation but a departure from orthodox Christianity. It aligns more with Mormon theology, which teaches that God has a physical body, or with process theology, which limits God’s presence and knowledge, than with biblical Christianity.
11. The Incompatibility with Other Doctrines
Dake’s error regarding omnipresence does not exist in theological isolation. Like pulling a single thread that unravels an entire garment, denying true omnipresence undermines numerous other essential Christian doctrines. This interconnectedness of theological truth means that Dake’s “felt presence” teaching creates a cascading series of theological problems that ultimately distort our entire understanding of God and His relationship with creation.
The Trinity Becomes Impossible
If God the Father has a physical body located in heaven, as Dake teaches, then the Trinity becomes three separate, spatially-located beings rather than one God in three persons. The essential unity of the Godhead is destroyed when each person is given a separate body that can only be in one place at a time.
Dake is explicit about this error in his notes on the Trinity. He writes: “So it is with the three Divine Members of the Divine Trinity—the separate persons in Elohim always retain their own personal body, soul, and spirit, yet they are one in perfect unity.”3 This makes the Trinity three separate gods who cooperate, not one God in three persons.
Dake reinforces this tritheistic error when he states: “If the fact is revealed that there are three separate distinct beings in the Deity or Godhead, this would be sufficient to warrant the conclusion that each of them have separate bodies, souls, and spirits, like all other separate and distinct beings. Even disembodied spirits are separate and distinct from each other and can be numbered as are all other beings.”8 Here Dake treats the three persons of the Trinity as if they were merely three separate beings like three separate angels or three separate humans, completely missing the unique nature of the Triune God.
Consider the implications: If the Father is bodily in heaven, the Son was bodily on earth during the incarnation, and the Spirit is somehow present with believers, we have three gods, not one God in three persons. This is tritheism, not Trinitarianism. Jesus’ statement “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30, NKJV) becomes meaningless if they are two separate bodily beings in different locations.
Furthermore, the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity (called perichoresis in theology) becomes impossible. Jesus said, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?” (John 14:10, NKJV). If the Father has a body in heaven and Jesus has a body on earth, how can they be “in” each other? Dake’s view makes nonsense of this essential Trinitarian truth.
Providence Becomes Impossible
The doctrine of providence teaches that God actively sustains and governs all creation moment by moment. As the Westminster Confession states: “God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence” (WCF 5.1).
But how can a God who is bodily located in heaven actively sustain every atom in the universe? How can He govern all creatures if He must travel to where they are? The Bible teaches that Christ “uphold[s] all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3, NKJV) and that “in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17, NKJV). This requires omnipresence, not a God who “goes from place to place like anybody else.”
Consider what happens to a biblical worldview if God is not omnipresent:
– Natural laws must operate independently of God
– Miracles require God to travel to the location
– Multiple simultaneous miracles become impossible
– God cannot sustain all creation simultaneously
– Creation must be self-sustaining rather than God-dependent
This leads inevitably toward deism—a God who created the world but is not intimately involved in its ongoing operation.
Prayer Becomes Problematic
If God is not omnipresent but must travel from place to place, prayer becomes deeply problematic. Can God hear all prayers simultaneously if He’s located only in heaven? Must prayers travel through space to reach Him? What happens to prayers offered while God is “traveling” to another location?
The Bible presents prayer as immediate access to God. “Before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear” (Isaiah 65:24, NKJV). This requires God’s immediate presence with the one praying, not a long-distance communication with a God in a distant heaven.
Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:9, NKJV), but He also promised “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20, NKJV). If Christ is only bodily in heaven, how is He in the midst of gathering believers? Dake’s view makes Jesus’ promise empty.
The Incarnation Loses Its Uniqueness
If God the Father already has a body, as Dake teaches, then the incarnation of the Son loses its uniqueness and wonder. The marvel of the incarnation is that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14, NKJV)—that the infinite, incorporeal God took on human nature. But if God already has a body, what’s special about the Son taking on flesh?
Furthermore, if the Father has a body in heaven while the Son has a body on earth, how can Jesus say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9, NKJV)? Are there two divine bodies to see? This undermines the very purpose of the incarnation—to reveal the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).
Divine Omniscience Becomes Limited
Omniscience (all-knowing) depends on omnipresence. God knows all things because He is present to all things. But if God is spatially limited, His knowledge must also be limited to what He can observe from His location or what is reported to Him.
Dake actually embraces this limitation, teaching that God learns and discovers things: “God gets to know things concerning the free moral actions of men as others do… God sends messengers throughout the Earth who report to Him of all that they find in the Earth that goes on… God does not take care of every detail of His vast business in all the kingdoms of the universe. His agents help Him and they are found in every part of the universe on missions for God… God does not personally do everything that is done in all acts and events, nor has He known, elected, chosen, or predestinated all the acts and events from all eternity past. Several times God, Himself said of certain events that they did not come into His mind.”9 But Scripture teaches that God’s “understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5, NKJV) and that “all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13, NKJV). This comprehensive knowledge requires comprehensive presence.
Judgment Becomes Unjust
Just judgment requires complete knowledge, which requires presence. If God is not omnipresent, He cannot have the comprehensive knowledge necessary for perfect justice. He would be like a judge making decisions based on incomplete evidence.
But Scripture assures us that God will “judge the world in righteousness” (Acts 17:31, NKJV) and will “bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing” (Ecclesiastes 12:14, NKJV). This requires omnipresent observation, not occasional visits from a traveling deity.
The New Creation Becomes Problematic
Scripture promises that in the new creation, God will “be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28, NKJV) and will “dwell with men” (Revelation 21:3, NKJV). If God has a physical body limited to one location, how can He dwell with all His people throughout the new creation? Must He choose one location? Must believers travel to where He is?
The biblical vision is far grander: “The tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them” (Revelation 21:3, NKJV)—not in one location but with all His people everywhere in the new creation. This requires omnipresence, not a localized deity.
12. How to Respond to Dake’s Teaching
Given the serious nature of Dake’s errors regarding God’s omnipresence, believers need wisdom in how to respond when encountering this teaching. Whether in personal conversation, church settings, or academic discussions, we must combine firm commitment to biblical truth with pastoral wisdom and Christian charity. Here we provide practical guidance for addressing this false teaching while maintaining a spirit of love and truth.
First, Understand the Appeal
Before we can effectively correct error, we must understand why people find it appealing. Dake’s teaching attracts some because:
1. It seems to make God more relatable and understandable. A God with a body who travels from place to place is easier to imagine than an infinite, omnipresent Spirit.
2. It appears to solve certain biblical difficulties. When the Bible speaks of God “coming down” or being “in heaven,” Dake’s view seems to take these passages at face value.
3. It connects with experiential Christianity. Many Christians emphasize feeling God’s presence, and Dake’s teaching seems to validate this emphasis.
4. It comes with an appearance of biblical authority. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible contains numerous proof texts that seem to support his position if not carefully examined.
Understanding these appeals helps us address not just the theological error but also the underlying concerns and confusions that make people vulnerable to this teaching.
Ground Your Response in Scripture
When correcting Dake’s error, always return to clear biblical teaching. Don’t rely primarily on theological arguments or church tradition, though these have their place. Instead, open the Bible and carefully examine what Scripture actually teaches. Key passages to emphasize include:
– Psalm 139:7-12 on the inescapability of God’s presence
– Jeremiah 23:23-24 on God filling heaven and earth
– Acts 17:27-28 on living and moving in God
– 1 Kings 8:27 on heaven being unable to contain God
– John 4:24 on God being Spirit
Show how Dake’s interpretation requires ignoring or redefining clear biblical statements. For instance, when Jeremiah says God fills heaven and earth, Dake must reinterpret “fills” to mean something other than actual presence. This kind of redefinition should raise red flags.
Address the Category Confusion
Much of Dake’s error stems from applying physical, spatial categories to God who is Spirit. Help people understand the difference between:
– Physical beings (which have bodies and locations) and spiritual beings (which do not)
– Anthropomorphisms (human descriptions of God for our understanding) and literal descriptions
– God accommodating to human understanding and God actually being limited like humans
Use analogies carefully to illustrate the difference. For instance, we might say the wind is “everywhere” in a room—not because wind has a body that fills the room, but because as moving air, it’s present throughout. How much more is the infinite God, who is Spirit, present everywhere without having a body!
Show the Dangerous Implications
Help people see where Dake’s teaching logically leads. If God has a body in heaven:
– He cannot hear all prayers simultaneously
– He cannot be present with all believers at once
– He cannot know what happens outside His location
– He cannot judge righteously without omnipresent knowledge
– He cannot be truly sovereign over all creation
These implications strike at the heart of biblical faith. A God who might not be present when we pray, who might not see our suffering, who might not be able to help us immediately—this is not the God of the Bible.
Provide Better Explanations
When correcting error, always provide better, biblical explanations for the passages Dake misuses. For instance:
When the Bible says God “comes down” (Genesis 11:5), explain this as God specially manifesting His presence for judgment or deliverance, not traveling from one location to another.
When Scripture speaks of God’s throne in heaven (Isaiah 66:1), explain this as symbolic of His sovereign rule, while the same verse says earth is His footstool, indicating His presence extends everywhere.
When the Bible uses bodily language for God (His eyes, hands, etc.), explain these as anthropomorphisms that help us understand God’s actions, not literal descriptions of divine body parts.
Be Patient with Those Deceived
Remember that many who accept Dake’s teaching are sincere Christians who have been misled. They may have used Dake’s Bible for years and trusted his notes. Learning that a trusted teacher was wrong about something so fundamental can be disturbing. Be patient, gentle, and understanding.
Paul’s instruction is relevant here: “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (2 Timothy 2:24-25, NKJV).
Recommend Sound Resources
Point people to reliable resources on God’s attributes:
– A.W. Tozer’s The Knowledge of the Holy for accessible reading
– J.I. Packer’s Knowing God for thorough biblical treatment
– Stephen Charnock’s The Existence and Attributes of God for detailed study
– The Westminster Confession or London Baptist Confession for concise statements
– Wayne Grudem’s or Millard Erickson’s Systematic Theology for comprehensive treatment
These resources provide solid biblical teaching on God’s omnipresence and other attributes, helping believers build a sound theological foundation.
Address It in Teaching and Preaching
Pastors and teachers should proactively teach on God’s attributes, including omnipresence. Don’t wait until error has taken root to address it. Regular, positive teaching on who God is provides the best inoculation against error.
When teaching on omnipresence:
– Define terms clearly
– Use biblical texts extensively
– Address common misconceptions
– Show practical implications
– Connect to other attributes
– Apply to Christian living
Stand Firm When Necessary
While we should be patient and gentle, we must also be firm about essential truth. Dake’s error is not a minor difference of interpretation but a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s nature. It’s appropriate to:
– Remove Dake’s materials from church libraries or bookstores
– Discourage the use of Dake’s Bible in Bible studies
– Correct public teaching that promotes his errors
– Exercise church discipline if leaders persistently teach this error after correction
The stakes are too high to treat this as a matter of indifference. Our understanding of God affects everything else in our theology and Christian life.
Key Points: Summary of Chapter 4
- Dake’s Fundamental Error: He reduces God’s omnipresence from objective reality to subjective feeling, claiming God’s presence is “felt” based on relationship rather than actually present everywhere.
- The Flawed Analogy: Dake compares God’s presence to a husband thinking about his distant family—confusing emotional connection with actual presence.
- Objective vs. Subjective Presence: The Bible teaches God is actually present everywhere (objective), not merely felt by some people sometimes (subjective). Jacob discovered “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.”
- Biblical Refutation: Scripture consistently teaches God’s inescapable presence—with Jonah fleeing unsuccessfully, David declaring no escape in Psalm 139, and God present even in hell for judgment.
- Experience-Based Theology Dangers: Making feelings the foundation of theology leads to subjectivism, relativism, and opens doors to deception while robbing suffering believers of comfort.
- God’s Presence with Unbelievers: Common grace, just judgment, and providence all require God’s presence with everyone, not just believers.
- Essential vs. Special Presence: While God is essentially present everywhere, He manifests special presence in particular ways (temple, incarnation, church) without being absent elsewhere.
- Historical Orthodox Position: From early fathers through Reformers to modern evangelicals, the church has unanimously rejected views like Dake’s and affirmed true omnipresence.
- Theological Cascade: Denying omnipresence undermines the Trinity, providence, prayer, incarnation, omniscience, and final judgment.
- Practical Impact: True omnipresence provides confidence in prayer, constant comfort, accountability for holiness, and assurance that never depends on feelings.
Common Questions About God’s Omnipresence and Dake’s Errors
Q1: If God is present everywhere, does that mean He’s present in sinful places like bars or casinos?
Answer: Yes, God is present even in places where sin occurs. Proverbs 15:3 states, “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (NKJV). God’s presence in sinful locations doesn’t mean He approves of the sin or participates in it. Rather, He is present as witness and judge. His holy presence actually makes sin more heinous, not less, because it’s committed in His sight. This is why Jonah couldn’t flee from God’s presence even when running from obedience. God’s omnipresence means sinners are always accountable, never hidden, and always within reach of His justice or mercy.
Q2: Doesn’t the Bible say sin separates us from God? How can God be present with sinners?
Answer: Sin does separate us from God, but this refers to relational separation, not spatial separation. Isaiah 59:2 says, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (NKJV), but this means sin breaks fellowship with God and brings us under judgment, not that God becomes absent. The prodigal son was separated from his father relationally while in the far country, but his father never stopped existing or being aware of him. Similarly, sinners are separated from God’s blessing and fellowship but never from His presence. They experience His presence as judgment rather than comfort, as wrath rather than love, but He is still present.
Q3: What about when the Bible says God “came down” to see the Tower of Babel or visit Sodom? Doesn’t this support Dake’s view?
Answer: These passages use anthropomorphic language—describing God in human terms to help us understand His actions. When God “comes down,” it refers to a special manifestation of His presence for judgment or intervention, not travel from one location to another. God was already present at Babel and Sodom (He’s omnipresent), but He specially manifested His presence to act in judgment. It’s like saying “the government investigated the company”—the government was already present through its laws and jurisdiction, but it specially acted through investigation. Calvin explained these passages as Scripture accommodating to our limited understanding, not describing God’s literal movement through space.
Q4: If God is omnipresent, why do some Christians feel His presence strongly while others don’t feel Him at all?
Answer: The variation in feeling God’s presence relates to our subjective experience, not God’s objective presence. Many factors affect our awareness of God: spiritual maturity, emotional state, physical health, distractions, sin, and God’s sovereign purposes in how He manifests Himself. Elijah didn’t feel God’s presence when depressed in the wilderness, but God was there providing for him. The disciples didn’t recognize Jesus on the road to Emmaus until their eyes were opened, but He was present the whole time. God is always present; our awareness varies. This is why we walk by faith, not by sight or feelings (2 Corinthians 5:7). The wonderful truth is that God is present even when we don’t feel Him.
Q5: How is Dake’s view different from the idea that God is specially present in worship or prayer?
Answer: The biblical teaching of God’s special presence (in worship, prayer, or with believers) adds to His omnipresence without subtracting from it. God is essentially present everywhere but manifests Himself specially in certain situations. It’s like the sun—it shines everywhere during the day, but we might use a magnifying glass to focus its rays specially in one spot. The focused rays don’t mean the sun stops shining elsewhere. Dake, however, denies God’s essential omnipresence, claiming He’s only present through “felt” relationship and must travel bodily from place to place. This makes God absent from most of creation most of the time, which contradicts Scripture’s teaching that God fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24).
Q6: If Dake is wrong about omnipresence, can we trust anything in the Dake Annotated Reference Bible?
Answer: While Dake’s Bible contains some helpful information, his serious error about God’s nature should make us very cautious about his notes and interpretations. This isn’t a minor interpretive difference but a fundamental misunderstanding of who God is. It’s like a math textbook that gets basic addition wrong—you’d have to question everything else it teaches. Dake’s hyper-literal interpretation method, his failure to recognize anthropomorphisms, and his materialistic view of God affect many of his interpretations. It’s better to use study Bibles by scholars who maintain orthodox views of God’s attributes, such as the ESV Study Bible, MacArthur Study Bible, or Reformation Study Bible. Always test any study notes against Scripture itself and the historic orthodox faith.
Q7: Why does this seemingly abstract theological point matter for everyday Christian living?
Answer: This doctrine profoundly affects every aspect of Christian life! If God is truly omnipresent, you’re never alone in suffering, your prayers are always heard, secret sin is always seen, and no situation is God-forsaken. But if Dake is right, God might be absent when you desperately need Him, might not hear your prayer if you don’t “feel” His presence, and might not see injustices that need correcting. True omnipresence means a depressed believer who feels abandoned is actually held in God’s presence, while Dake’s view leaves them truly alone. It affects our comfort in trials, confidence in prayer, motivation for holiness, and assurance of salvation. Far from being abstract, this doctrine touches the most practical and personal aspects of faith.
Contrasting Biblical Truth with Dake’s Errors
To clearly see the stark difference between biblical orthodoxy and Dake’s teaching, let us set them side by side:
On the Nature of God’s Presence:
Biblical Teaching: God is actually, objectively present everywhere in His creation. “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jeremiah 23:24, NKJV). His presence is an ontological reality independent of human awareness or relationship.
Dake’s Error: “God is omni-present but not omni-body…His presence can be felt by moral agents who are everywhere, but His body cannot be seen by them every place at the same time” (God’s Plan for Man, 61). Presence is psychological and relational, not actual.
On How Presence Works:
Biblical Teaching: God’s presence does not depend on human consciousness or relationship. He is present with believers and unbelievers, the aware and unaware, the willing and unwilling.
Dake’s Error: “Presence is governed by relationship, not bodily sight” (God’s Plan for Man, 61). Uses the analogy of feeling distant family’s presence through emotional connection.
On God’s Being:
Biblical Teaching: “God is Spirit” (John 4:24, NKJV). He is incorporeal, without body, parts, or spatial limitations.
Dake’s Error: “God has a body and goes from place to place like anybody else” (God’s Plan for Man, 57). God is a physical being limited to one location at a time.
On God’s Location:
Biblical Teaching: God transcends spatial location while being immanently present everywhere. “Heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You” (1 Kings 8:27, NKJV).
Dake’s Error: God is located on His throne in heaven and must travel to be present elsewhere. Heaven is a “material planet” where God physically dwells.
On God’s Presence with Sinners:
Biblical Teaching: God is present even with the wicked. “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3, NKJV).
Dake’s Error: Those without relationship with God are outside His presence. Presence requires conscious relationship.
On the Basis of Assurance:
Biblical Teaching: Believers can be assured of God’s presence based on His promises and nature, regardless of feelings. “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5, NKJV).
Dake’s Error: Assurance of God’s presence depends on feeling and maintaining conscious relationship. No feeling means no presence.
The contrast could not be clearer. Biblical Christianity presents a God who is infinitely present, always near, never absent. Dake presents a limited, localized deity whose presence depends on human factors. One offers objective comfort and accountability; the other offers subjective uncertainty and theological chaos.
Conclusion: Standing on the Solid Ground of Biblical Truth
As we conclude our examination of Dake’s “felt presence” heresy, we must recognize that we are dealing with no small matter. The question of God’s omnipresence is not an abstract theological debate reserved for seminary classrooms or academic conferences. Rather, it strikes at the very heart of who God is, how He relates to His creation, and what it means to live as His creatures in His world. Dake’s reduction of divine omnipresence to a subjective, felt experience based on relationship represents not merely an interpretive difference but a fundamental departure from biblical Christianity.
We have seen throughout this chapter that Dake’s teaching fails at every level of examination. Biblically, it requires a tortured reinterpretation of clear passages that declare God’s omnipresence. Texts like Psalm 139, Jeremiah 23:23-24, and Acts 17:27-28 must be emptied of their plain meaning to accommodate Dake’s view. When David declares that he cannot flee from God’s presence, when Jeremiah records God’s declaration that He fills heaven and earth, when Paul tells pagan philosophers that in God they live and move and have their being—all these must be reduced from statements about reality to descriptions of possible feelings.
Theologically, Dake’s position creates an avalanche of problems. A God who has a body and travels from place to place cannot be truly infinite, truly sovereign, or truly omniscient. The Trinity becomes three separate beings rather than one God in three persons. Providence becomes impossible if God must be physically present to act. Prayer becomes uncertain if God might not be present to hear. The incarnation loses its uniqueness if the Father already has a body. Judgment becomes unjust if based on incomplete knowledge. Every major doctrine of the Christian faith is undermined when we deny God’s omnipresence.
Historically, Dake stands condemned by the united witness of orthodox Christianity. From the earliest church fathers through the medieval scholastics, from the Protestant Reformers through the Puritans to contemporary evangelical theologians, the church has consistently affirmed that God is truly, actually, objectively present everywhere. Dake’s position finds no support in the great creeds, confessions, or theological works of the church. Instead, it aligns more closely with Mormon theology or process theology than with biblical Christianity.
Practically, Dake’s teaching robs believers of precious biblical truths that provide comfort, create accountability, and inspire worship. The depressed saint who cannot feel God’s presence is told that God is therefore absent. The suffering believer in the dark night of the soul is left truly alone. The sinner thinks he can hide from God’s sight. The missionary must somehow bring God to places He has never been. Prayer becomes a hoping that God might hear rather than confidence that He always does. These are not minor losses but devastating deprivations of biblical truth.
Most seriously, Dake’s error presents us with a different god than the God of the Bible—a god made in man’s image rather than man made in God’s image. This god has a body like us, travels like us, is limited like us, and relates like us. He is a superhuman rather than the transcendent, infinite, incomprehensible God revealed in Scripture. This is not a slightly mistaken view of the true God but ultimately an idol, a false god of human imagination.
Dake reinforces this materialistic view when he writes: “There is no such thing as a world of creations made up of invisible substance. The so-called spirit-world must be understood simply as spirit beings inhabiting material worlds created by God. Heaven itself is a material planet (Gen. 1:1; Heb. 11:10-16), having cities, mansions, furniture, inhabitants, living conditions, etc.”4 This statement reveals Dake’s fundamental inability to conceive of existence apart from materiality—he must make everything, even heaven and God Himself, physical and localized.
Yet in correcting this error, we do not merely tear down false teaching; we build up glorious truth. The biblical doctrine of God’s omnipresence offers us a God who is infinitely greater, more glorious, and more comforting than Dake’s limited deity. This is a God from whom we cannot flee but to whom we can always turn. This is a God who is never absent when we need Him, never distant when we call, never unaware of our situation. This is a God whose presence brings accountability that promotes holiness and comfort that sustains through trials.
The Psalmist understood this when he wrote those immortal words: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?” (Psalm 139:7, NKJV). This is not a lament but a comfort. We cannot escape God’s presence, and therefore we are never alone, never forgotten, never beyond His reach of mercy or help. Even in the valley of the shadow of death, we fear no evil, for He is with us—not might be with us if we feel Him, but IS with us.
As we return to biblical truth about God’s omnipresence, we find ourselves standing on solid ground that has supported the faith of believers for two millennia. This is the God whom Augustine found had been within him all along while he searched outside. This is the God whom Luther found present in the smallest leaf. This is the God whom Spurgeon found present even in depression’s darkness. This is the God whom countless martyrs found present in their suffering, countless missionaries found already present in unreached lands, and countless ordinary believers have found faithful to His promise never to leave nor forsake them.
Therefore, let us reject decisively Dake’s “felt presence” heresy and embrace fully the biblical truth of God’s omnipresence. Let us teach it clearly to the next generation, that they might not be led astray by those who would limit God to human categories. Let us preach it boldly from our pulpits, that God’s people might find comfort and conviction in His constant presence. Let us live it daily, practicing the presence of God not as a psychological exercise but as recognition of objective reality.
For in the end, the question is not whether we feel God’s presence but whether we will live in light of the truth that He is always present. Not whether we can create a sense of His presence through relationship but whether we will respond appropriately to His omnipresence. Not whether God is with us but whether we will live as those who know He is always there—watching, sustaining, judging, helping, and ultimately, glorifying Himself through His omnipresent involvement with His creation.
May we never exchange the God who fills heaven and earth for a god who must travel from place to place. May we never trade the comfort of objective divine presence for the uncertainty of subjective human feelings. May we never reduce the infinite, omnipresent God revealed in Scripture to the limited, localized deity of human imagination. Instead, may we worship, serve, and proclaim the God who is not far from each one of us, for in Him we live and move and have our being.
This is our God—not Dake’s limited deity but the infinite, omnipresent Lord revealed in Scripture, confessed by the church, and experienced by believers throughout history. To Him be glory forever and ever. Amen.
Prayer of Response
Almighty and ever-present God, we thank You that You are not a distant deity confined to heaven, but the omnipresent Lord who fills heaven and earth. We confess that sometimes we have lived as practical atheists, as though You were absent when we didn’t feel Your presence. Forgive us for reducing You to our categories and limiting You to our understanding.
Thank You that when we walk through dark valleys, You are there. When we cannot feel You, You remain present. When depression clouds our minds or suffering overwhelms our hearts, You have not abandoned us. Thank You that Your presence is not dependent on our awareness, our feelings, or our faithfulness, but on Your own infinite and unchangeable nature.
Give us wisdom to recognize and reject false teaching that would limit Your presence or make it dependent on human factors. Give us courage to stand for biblical truth even when it’s unfashionable or difficult to understand. Give us compassion to gently correct those who have been misled while firmly maintaining the truth of Your Word.
Help us to live each day in the consciousness of Your presence—not as those trying to make You present through our feelings, but as those responding to Your objective presence with appropriate worship, holiness, and service. May the truth of Your omnipresence comfort us in trials, convict us in sin, and compel us in mission.
We pray for those who have been confused by false teaching about Your nature. Open their eyes to see You as You truly are—infinite, omnipresent, glorious beyond our comprehension yet nearer than our very breath. May Your church stand firm on the biblical truth of who You are, never exchanging Your glory for human imagination.
In the name of Jesus Christ, who is Immanuel, God with us, we pray. Amen.
Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.
Athanasius. Against the Heathen. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1892.
Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
———. On the Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1887.
Calvin, John. Commentary on Genesis. Translated by John King. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847.
———. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. 2 vols. 1682. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.
Clement of Rome. First Epistle of Clement. In The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912.
Dake, Finis Jennings. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963.
———. God’s Plan for Man. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. 1871-1873. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885.
London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). London: n.p., 1689. Reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1981.
Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Vol. 37. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961.
Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Piper, John. The Hidden Smile of God: The Fruit of Affliction in the Lives of John Bunyan, William Cowper, and David Brainerd. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001.
Tozer, A. W. The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God, Their Meaning in the Christian Life. New York: Harper & Row, 1961.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Philadelphia: Westminster Assembly, 1647. Reprint, Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994.
Footnotes
1 Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), commentary on Ezekiel 1:26-28.
2 Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), Index entry “Omnipresent.”
3 Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), Index entry “One.”
4 Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Study Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, 1991), Doctrine of God section.
5 Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 57.
6 Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 61-62.
7 Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 62.
8 Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 447.
9 Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 62.
Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.
