Chapter 04: The Trinity Disaster – Three Gods Instead of One

Of all the theological errors that Finis Jennings Dake taught throughout his ministry, none strikes more directly at the heart of Christian faith than his complete redefinition of the Trinity. Where orthodox Christianity has always proclaimed one God existing eternally in three persons, Dake taught three separate Gods who merely work together toward common goals. This isn’t a minor adjustment to our understanding of divine mystery—it’s the abandonment of monotheism for polytheism. When a teacher transforms the central doctrine of Christianity into something the church has always recognized as heresy, we must sound the alarm with clarity and urgency. Dake didn’t simply misunderstand the Trinity; he demolished it entirely and rebuilt a tri-theistic system that would have horrified the apostles, scandalized the church fathers, and been condemned by every major branch of Christianity throughout history.

Dake, Finis Jennings. God’s Plan for Man: Contained in Fifty-Two Lessons, One for Each Week of the Year. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949. Dake, Finis Jennings. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963.

The Shocking Reality: What Dake Actually Taught About the Trinity

Before we can understand the magnitude of Dake’s error, we must first examine exactly what he taught. Many who use the Dake Bible have never carefully read his extensive notes on the nature of God. They assume that because he uses the word “Trinity,” he must believe what Christians have always believed. But Dake completely redefined the term while keeping the familiar word, creating massive confusion. It’s like someone selling you a car but delivering three separate motorcycles instead, insisting they’re really the same thing because they all have engines and wheels.

Let’s begin with Dake’s own words from his most comprehensive work, God’s Plan for Man. On page 51, he makes this astounding statement: “The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are three persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit.” Stop and read that again. Dake isn’t saying that the one God exists as three persons sharing one divine essence. He’s saying there are three separate beings, each with their own body, soul, and spirit. This immediately transforms one God into three Gods.

He becomes even more explicit on the same page: “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each and every separate person in the universe has a personal body, soul, and spirit… which are separate and distinct from all others.” The phrase “separate and distinct from all others” eliminates any possibility of understanding this as orthodox Trinitarianism. Dake is teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are as separate from each other as you are from your neighbor.

In his Bible notes, Dake goes further. Commenting on Genesis 1:26, he writes: “This proves a plurality of persons in the Godhead, each having a personal body, soul, and spirit, for man was made in the image and likeness of God.” Notice the logical leap here. The Bible says “Let us make man in our image.” From this plural pronoun, Dake concludes not just that there are multiple persons (which orthodox theology affirms) but that each has a separate body, soul, and spirit. This is like hearing someone say “We’re going to the store” and concluding that multiple separate human beings must be going, each in their own car, rather than understanding it could be one family traveling together.

Dake makes his position unmistakably clear in his “89 Proofs of A Divine Trinity” section, where he explicitly defines his understanding: “What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul, and spirit.”¹ He leaves no room for misunderstanding—he teaches that the members of the Trinity are as separate from each other as individual humans are from one another.

He elaborates this teaching even further, explaining that just as angels, humans, and all other beings have their own distinct bodies, souls, and spirits, so do the three members of the Godhead: “All angels have like spirit-bodies, souls, and spirits; all men have the same kind of bodies, souls, and spirits; all animals of the same species have the same likeness; and all demons are similar. Thus every person or thing in existence is similar to all other persons and things of the same nature and essence. So it is with God.”¹⁰ This makes absolutely explicit that Dake views the three persons as three completely separate beings of the same type, not as one being in three persons.

The implications of Dake’s teaching become clearer when we examine how he handles specific biblical texts. When confronted with Deuteronomy 6:4—”Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”—Dake doesn’t deny the text. Instead, he completely redefines what “one” means. In his note on this crucial verse, he argues: “The Hebrew word ‘echad’ translated ‘one’ means a united one, not an absolute one… It is used of two becoming one flesh… The same word is used in Gen. 2:24 of two persons becoming one.”

This is linguistic manipulation of the worst kind. While it’s true that ‘echad’ can sometimes refer to composite unity (as in “one bunch of grapes”), the context of Deuteronomy 6:4 makes its meaning crystal clear. This is Israel’s great confession of monotheism, distinguishing their faith from the polytheism of surrounding nations. The entire point is that Israel worships only one God, not multiple gods like their neighbors. Dake turns this declaration of monotheism into an affirmation of polytheism, completely reversing its meaning.

In his discussion of how “one” should be understood, Dake further elaborates: “The word one means one in unity as well as one in number. It means unity in 1 Jn. 5:7, as it does in Jn. 17:11, 21-23, and yet these three persons, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are spoken of as one each in number and individuality in Scripture. There is one God the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:3-6). Thus there are three separate persons in divine individuality and divine plurality.”² Notice how he moves seamlessly from acknowledging they are “one” to insisting they are “three separate persons”—exactly the tritheism the church has always condemned.

“One” Doesn’t Mean One? Dake’s Linguistic Gymnastics

To understand how Dake arrived at his polytheistic conclusion, we must examine his treatment of the biblical concept of divine unity. The word “one” appears repeatedly in Scripture’s declarations about God’s nature. “The LORD he is God; there is none else beside him” (Deuteronomy 4:35). “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” (Isaiah 43:10). “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44:8). These statements seem absolutely clear—there is only one God. But Dake had a method for explaining them all away.

His approach was to conduct word studies that ignored context entirely. He would look up every use of the Hebrew word ‘echad’ (one) in the Old Testament, find instances where it referred to composite unity, and then insist this must be its meaning everywhere, including in passages about God’s nature. It’s like looking up the English word “run” in various sentences—”run a race,” “run a business,” “run for office,” “nose is running”—and insisting it must mean the same thing in every case.

In God’s Plan for Man, Dake elaborates on his redefinition: “It is used as one in unity many times: ‘they shall be one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24); ‘the people is one’ (Gen. 11:6). The Greek word for one in ‘one Lord’ and ‘one God’ in Mark 12:29, 32 is hen, to gather together in one (John 11:52) and to be one in unity (John 10:30; 17:11, 21-23; 1 John 5:7-8).” Notice what he’s doing here. He’s taking verses where “one” refers to unity between separate beings (husband and wife, multiple people) and applying this meaning to verses about God’s essential nature.

But this approach falls apart under scrutiny. When Genesis says husband and wife become “one flesh,” it doesn’t mean they cease to be two separate human beings. They remain two persons who are united in marriage. If we apply Dake’s logic consistently, then the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would remain three separate Gods who are united in purpose. That’s not monotheism—it’s polytheism with cooperation.

Dake goes even further in trying to defend his position. He writes: “The word one is explained in Point I, 5; 4, and Point II, 6 above, for which see. Some facts concerning the Trinity are given in Point II, 6 above. For full and complete proof we shall wait until Lesson Twenty-seven. Here we may say that the only sense in which THREE can be ONE is the sense of unity, and ONE PERSON cannot be THREE PERSONS in any sense. So the old idea that God exists as three persons in one person is not only unscriptural, but it is ridiculous to say the least.”

Dake provides an extensive list comparing various biblical uses of “one” to support his interpretation. He writes: “These three (individuals-the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Ghost) are o. (1 Jn. 5:7). The only sense in which three can be done is in unity—never in number of persons. The disciples, as in Jn.17:11,21-23, for instance, were not to become o. person, o. individual, or o. being with only o. human body, o. soul, and o. spirit. They were to become o. in unity, consecrated to the same end to which God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are consecrated—the highest good of all. They were to retain their own bodies, souls, spirits and personalities as individuals. 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 his polytheism explicit—three separate beings with separate bodies who cooperate.

Dake’s extended discussion of unity reveals how he views the relationship between the three members of the Godhead: “Cannot any number of persons retain their individuality and still be one in unity? Could not this be true of the Godhead? Could not God exist as three separate persons with three separate bodies, souls, and spirits, and still be one in unity?”¹¹ His rhetorical questions make clear that he believes three separate Gods can work together while remaining completely distinct beings, exactly the definition of polytheism.

The real test of Dake’s interpretation comes when we examine how Jesus and the apostles understood divine unity. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, “I and my Father are one.” If Dake is correct that “one” merely means unity of purpose between separate Gods, then Jesus is saying nothing more than “My Father and I work well together.” But look at the Jewish response: “The Jews took up stones again to stone him” (John 10:31). Why would they want to stone Jesus for claiming to have a good working relationship with God? They understood perfectly well that Jesus was claiming to be one with God in essence, not just in purpose. They accused Him of blasphemy, “because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33).

The same problem appears when we examine Jesus’ prayer in John 17. Jesus prays that believers “may be one, as we are” (John 17:11) and “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee” (John 17:21). If Dake is correct that the Father and Son are separate Gods united only in purpose, then Jesus is praying for believers to become separate gods too. This is absurd. Jesus is clearly using the unity between believers as an analogy for the much deeper, essential unity between the Father and Son.

Three Separate Beings vs. One God in Three Persons

To grasp the enormous difference between what Dake taught and what Christianity has always believed, we need to understand the distinction between “being” and “person.” This might seem like philosophical hair-splitting, but it’s actually crucial for understanding who God is. Your being is WHAT you are—a human. Your person is WHO you are—your unique identity, consciousness, and relationships. You are one being (human) and one person (yourself). God is one being (divine) and three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Orthodox Christianity maintains this crucial distinction. The Westminster Confession states it clearly: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” The Athanasian Creed, which has been accepted by all major branches of Christianity for over 1,500 years, declares: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.”

But Dake completely obliterates this distinction. In his system, each person of the Trinity is a separate being with His own body, soul, and spirit. He writes in God’s Plan for Man, page 51: “The body of any being is the outward form or house in which the soul and spirit dwell (Gen. 2:7, 19; John 5:28-29; Matt. 27:52; 1 Cor. 15:14-58; Jas. 2:26; 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 10:5). There are spiritual and natural bodies, or heavenly and earthly bodies; and both kinds are real (1 Cor. 15:40-49).”

He continues: “The soul is that part which feels—the seat of his affections, emotions, passions, and desires, and which gives him self-consciousness and makes him a sentient being (Lev. 23:43; 1 Sam. 22:2; 2 Sam. 13:39; 2 Kings 4:27; 23:3; Ps. 107:5, 9, 18, 26; Mark 12:33; Matt. 26:38; John 12:27; Heb. 10:38; Rev. 6:9).”

And finally: “The spirit is that part of all living things that know—the seat of his intellect, mind, and will, and that which gives him self-determination and makes him a free moral agent and a rational being (Gen. 2:11; Matt. 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 2:11; Matt. 5:3; 1 Cor. 2:11; 16:18; Exod. 35:21; Job 38:36; 1 Jn. Prov. 20:27; Phil. 1:27; Heb. 4:12; Jas. 2:6; 1 Thess. 5:23).”

By giving each person of the Godhead His own separate body, soul, and spirit, Dake has created three complete, independent beings. This isn’t the Trinity—it’s a trinity of gods, a divine committee, a heavenly partnership. It’s as if three business partners decided to call their company “Trinity Corporation” and claimed they were actually one company while maintaining three separate offices, bank accounts, and employee rosters.

Dake’s extensive justification for this position reveals his fundamental error: “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… If they are separate and distinct persons, then each one would have to have His own personality, spirit-body, soul, spirit, and His own individuality in every sense that it is understood and required of any other person in existence.”¹² His logic is clear: separate persons must mean separate beings with separate bodies.

Dake’s teaching on the physical nature of God further emphasizes this separation. He insists: “The Bible declares that God has a body, shape, image, likeness, bodily parts, a personal soul and spirit, and all other things that constitute a being or a person with a body, soul, and spirit… Angels, cherubim, seraphim, and all other spirit beings have spirit bodies and personal souls and spirits. They have been seen with the natural eyes of men over 100 times in Scripture. If all other spirit beings have spirit bodies, could not the members of the Trinity also have spirit bodies?”⁴ This leads him to the inevitable conclusion that each member of the Trinity has a localized, physical (though spiritual) body.

The practical implications of Dake’s error become apparent when we consider how the Bible describes the relationships within the Godhead. Jesus says, “All things that the Father hath are mine” (John 16:15). If the Father and Son are separate Gods with separate possessions, how can everything that belongs to one God also belong to another God? It would be like saying, “Everything Bill Gates owns, I also own,” which would only be true if you were Bill Gates or shared his bank account.

Similarly, Paul writes that “in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). If the Godhead consists of three separate Gods, how can the fullness of all three dwell in one? Can you fit three separate cars fully into one parking space? Three separate houses on one lot? The language only makes sense if the three persons share one divine essence.

Even more problematic is the Bible’s teaching about the Holy Spirit. Paul writes, “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?” (1 Corinthians 6:19). If the Holy Spirit has His own separate body, as Dake teaches, how can He dwell in millions of believers simultaneously? A being with a body can only be in one location at a time. You can’t be sitting in your living room and your kitchen at the same moment. But the Bible teaches that the same Holy Spirit indwells all believers everywhere at the same time. This is only possible if the Spirit is truly God—omnipresent and not limited by a physical or spiritual body.

Dake attempts to address this problem with his distinction between “omnipresence” and “omnibody”: “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all present where there are beings with whom they have dealings; but they are not omnibody, that is, their bodies are not omnipresent. All three go from place to place bodily as other beings in the universe do.”⁵ This attempted solution only makes the problem worse—if God must travel from place to place, He is not omnipresent at all, destroying one of His essential attributes.

Dake’s extended explanation of his view on omnipresence reveals how far he strays from biblical teaching: “Spirit beings, including God, Himself, cannot be omnipresent in body, for their bodies are of ordinary size and must be at one place at a time, in the same way that bodies of men are always localized, being in one place at a time. God, angels, and other spirit beings go from place to place bodily as men do; but their presence can be any place in the universe—wherever there are other persons who also have the sense of presence enough to feel the presence of others regardless of bodily distance between them.”¹³ By limiting God’s omnipresence to merely an influence that can be felt, Dake has destroyed the biblical doctrine of God’s true omnipresence.

Why This Is Polytheism, Not Christianity

We need to be absolutely clear about what Dake’s teaching really is: polytheism. This isn’t a harsh judgment or an overstatement—it’s a simple description of any system that teaches multiple gods. When you have three separate beings, each with their own body, soul, and spirit, you have three gods, not one God. Calling them “Trinity” doesn’t make them one any more than calling three houses a “neighborhood” makes them one house.

Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods, and it’s precisely what the Bible repeatedly condemns. The first of the Ten Commandments declares, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). This assumes there is only one true God to worship. Isaiah records God’s own words: “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isaiah 45:5). Not “no other Gods beside us” but “no God beside me”—singular.

The entire Old Testament is a sustained polemic against polytheism. Israel was constantly tempted to worship the multiple gods of surrounding nations—Baal, Asherah, Molech, Dagon, and others. The prophets repeatedly called them back to monotheism: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This wasn’t a statement that multiple gods worked together in unity. It was a declaration that only one God exists and deserves worship.

Dake tries to avoid the charge of polytheism by claiming his three Gods are united in purpose and action. But unity doesn’t equal identity. The United States Congress has unity of purpose (theoretically) in governing the nation, but that doesn’t make 535 representatives into one person. A basketball team has unity in trying to win the game, but five players remain five distinct individuals. Similarly, three Gods working together are still three Gods, not one God.

The early church faced this exact issue and decisively rejected it. In the second and third centuries, various teachers proposed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate divine beings. This teaching, known as tritheism, was condemned as heretical. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD specifically affirmed that the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father—not a similar substance, not a united substance, but the very same divine essence.

Dake’s own teaching confirms his tritheism when he explicitly rejects orthodox formulations. In his list of “unscriptural” views, he categorically denies: “That God consists of three persons in one person or three beings in one being.”⁶ Yet this straw-man version of “three persons in one person” has never been orthodox teaching. The historic Christian faith teaches three persons in one BEING—which Dake explicitly rejects as impossible. He further insists: “In no conceivable way can we force a meaning of three persons in one person; three beings in one being; or three manifestations of only one person in any of these or any other scripture.”⁷ By rejecting “three persons in one being,” Dake places himself squarely outside Christian orthodoxy.

Dake makes his position even more explicit when he describes the collective nature of the Godhead: “All three persons of the Godhead are divine and can be spoken of individually as ‘God’ and collectively as ‘one God’ in the sense of unity. Each one is called ‘Lord,’ and collectively all three can be called ‘one Lord’ in the sense of unity… Any family as individuals or collectively could be called by the family name; so it is with the Godhead. All three persons in the Deity are Divine, God, Lord, etc.”¹⁴ His family analogy perfectly captures his polytheism—three separate beings who share a common name and purpose, just as three siblings share a family name while remaining three distinct persons.

Consider what happens to Christian worship if Dake is correct. When we pray, which God are we addressing? When we sing praise, are we praising three Gods or one? When Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father,” was He directing us to ignore the other two Gods? The whole structure of biblical worship assumes one God, not a divine committee.

The same problem appears in salvation. Paul writes, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). If Christ is a separate God from the Father, then this verse makes no sense. It would have to read, “One God was in another God, reconciling the world to the first God.” The biblical picture is that God Himself, in the person of the Son, took on human nature to save us. But in Dake’s system, one God sends another God to save humans from the wrath of the first God. This turns the beautiful truth of divine self-sacrifice into a cosmic transaction between separate deities.

Key Passages Dake Mangles

To fully understand the devastating impact of Dake’s false teaching, we must examine how he handles crucial biblical passages about God’s nature. These aren’t obscure or difficult texts—they’re foundational verses that every Christian should know. Yet Dake manages to twist each one to support his polytheistic system.

The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4)

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” This verse, known as the Shema (Hebrew for “hear”), is the foundational confession of Jewish and Christian monotheism. Jewish people have recited it daily for thousands of years. Jesus Himself identified it as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29). It’s the clearest possible statement that only one God exists.

But here’s how Dake handles it in his Bible notes: “The Hebrew word for one is echad, meaning a united one, not an absolute one… The same word echad is used of two becoming one flesh (Gen. 2:24), all the people being one (Gen. 11:6), and many other Scriptures on unity.”

This is textbook example of the word-study fallacy. Yes, echad can refer to composite unity in some contexts. But meaning is determined by context, not by all possible uses of a word. The context of Deuteronomy 6:4 is absolutely clear—it’s distinguishing Israel’s worship of one God from the polytheism of surrounding nations. The Egyptians had hundreds of gods. The Canaanites worshiped Baal, Asherah, and other deities. Against this polytheistic background, Moses declares that Israel’s God is ONE.

Dake’s extended commentary makes his interpretation explicit: “The Lord (Jehovah) our God (Elohim, a plural noun) is o. Lord (Jehovah); that is, a unified Jehovah or Elohim, not o. in number as to persons (Dt. 6:4). There are two and three persons called Jehovah… The Heb. for one here (Dt. 6:4) is echad which means untied as o., as well as o. in number; and certainly its use in this passage means composite unity and not absolute unity. Elohim is unified, not divided; this is what is stated here.”⁸ His insistence that echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 means “composite unity and not absolute unity” directly contradicts the entire point of the verse.

If Dake were correct that echad here means “united,” then Moses would be saying, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our Gods are united Gods”—which would be admitting that multiple Gods exist, just like the pagans believed! This would offer no distinction from polytheism at all. The nations around Israel already believed their gods could work together when needed. The radical claim of the Shema is that only one God exists, period.

Furthermore, when the Shema is quoted in the New Testament, it uses the Greek word “heis,” which primarily means the number one. Jesus quotes it in Mark 12:29: “Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.” The scribe responding to Jesus understood this perfectly, replying, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he” (Mark 12:32). Notice—”there is none other but he”—singular, not “them.”

Dake’s interpretation also fails the test of Jewish understanding. For over 3,000 years, Jewish scholars and rabbis have understood the Shema as the ultimate declaration of monotheism. Are we to believe that Dake, writing in the 20th century, suddenly discovered that Jews have been misunderstanding their most fundamental prayer all along? That they’ve actually been polytheists without knowing it?

John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”)

When Jesus declared, “I and my Father are one,” He made one of the most profound statements about His divine nature in all of Scripture. The Greek construction (ego kai ho pater hen esmen) is carefully worded. “We are” (esmen) is plural, showing that the Father and Son are distinct persons. But “one” (hen) is neuter, not masculine, indicating that they are one in essence, not one person.

Dake’s note on this passage reveals his complete misunderstanding: “One in unity, not in person or number (John 17:11, 21-23). They are two separate persons as proven in Points I, II, Lesson Twenty-seven.”

But look at how the Jews responded to Jesus’ statement: “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him” (John 10:31). When Jesus asked why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33).

This reaction makes no sense if Jesus was merely claiming unity of purpose with God. The Jewish leaders had no problem with people claiming to work in harmony with God’s purposes. The prophets did that. John the Baptist did that. But claiming to be one with God in the way Jesus did was understood as a claim to deity itself. The Jews weren’t confused about Jesus’ meaning—they understood perfectly that He was claiming to be God, and they considered it blasphemy.

Jesus doesn’t correct their understanding. He doesn’t say, “No, you misunderstand—I’m just saying the Father and I work well together.” Instead, He defends His claim by pointing to His works as evidence of His divine nature: “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him” (John 10:37-38).

The phrase “the Father is in me, and I in him” describes a unity that goes far beyond mere cooperation. You and your best friend might work together perfectly, but you wouldn’t say you’re in each other. This mutual indwelling is only possible if the Father and Son share the same divine essence. As Jesus later explains, “All things that the Father hath are mine” (John 16:15). Two separate Gods couldn’t share everything—they would each have their own distinct possessions, powers, and attributes.

The Baptismal Formula (Matthew 28:19)

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This command from Jesus provides one of the clearest windows into the trinitarian nature of God, and Dake’s mishandling of it reveals the bankruptcy of his theology.

Notice carefully: Jesus says baptize in the NAME (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Not “names” (plural) but “name” (singular). If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate Gods, Jesus would have said “baptizing them in the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The singular “name” indicates that while there are three distinct persons, they share one divine nature and authority.

Dake tries to explain this away in his notes: “Name is singular because it is distributive, referring to each person of the Godhead individually. It could read ‘in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost.'”

But this explanation doesn’t work linguistically or theologically. If Jesus meant what Dake suggests, He could have easily said it that way. The Greek language was perfectly capable of expressing “in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost.” But that’s not what Jesus said. He deliberately used a singular noun with three persons, indicating unity in plurality.

Furthermore, the early church understood this formula as clearly trinitarian. The Didache, a first-century Christian document, instructs believers to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” understanding this as invoking the one God who exists as three persons. They didn’t see this as invoking three separate Gods.

The formula also appears in Paul’s benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). If these were three separate Gods, this would be like saying, “May you have the blessing of Zeus, Apollo, and Hermes.” But Paul, a strict monotheist trained as a Pharisee, would never invoke multiple Gods. He’s invoking the one God in His three persons.

What the Church Has Always Believed

To appreciate how radically Dake departed from Christian orthodoxy, we must understand what the church has actually taught about the Trinity throughout history. This isn’t a doctrine that developed slowly or uncertainly. From the earliest days of Christianity, believers have affirmed both the absolute oneness of God and the full deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The apostolic teaching is clear. Paul, a former Pharisee trained in strict Jewish monotheism, had no problem declaring, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Yet the same Paul wrote that Christ is “God blessed for ever” (Romans 9:5) and that “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). Paul saw no contradiction because he understood that the one God exists as multiple persons.

The early church fathers were equally clear. Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 110 AD), writing within a generation of the apostles, referred to Jesus Christ as “our God” while maintaining strict monotheism. Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) wrote extensively against those who would divide the Godhead into separate beings, insisting that Father, Son, and Spirit are one God.

The Apostles’ Creed, one of the earliest Christian confessions, begins: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord… I believe in the Holy Ghost.” Notice it doesn’t say “I believe in the Gods” but “God”—singular—who is then identified as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

When various heresies arose challenging this understanding, the church responded with careful theological formulation. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was convened specifically to address the teaching of Arius, who claimed that the Son was a separate, created being from the Father. The council’s response was decisive: the Son is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father—not a similar substance, not a united substance, but the very same divine essence.

The Nicene Creed, which grew from this council and was finalized at Constantinople in 381 AD, declares: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty… And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father… And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.”

Notice the careful language: One God, not three. The Son is “Very God of Very God” yet “of one substance with the Father.” The Spirit is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and Son, not as a separate God but as the one God in His third person.

The Athanasian Creed, though not written by Athanasius himself, expresses the mature understanding of the Trinity that developed through centuries of careful biblical study and theological reflection. It states with remarkable clarity:

“We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal… The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated… The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal… So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.”

This creed continues for several more paragraphs, carefully distinguishing between what we can say about the persons individually and what we must say about the Godhead as a whole. It’s a masterpiece of theological precision, developed specifically to exclude the kind of errors Dake would later teach.

The Reformers, despite breaking with Rome on many issues, completely affirmed the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Luther wrote, “We Christians believe and confess that God is one single, undivided, divine essence and yet there are three distinct persons in the one Godhead.” Calvin dedicated extensive sections of his Institutes to defending the Trinity against various errors, including the very tritheism that Dake would later embrace.

The Westminster Confession (1646), the London Baptist Confession (1689), and virtually every orthodox Christian confession throughout history affirms the same truth: one God in three persons, not three Gods in unity. This isn’t a controversial or disputed doctrine among orthodox Christians—it’s the foundation of Christian theism.

What makes Dake’s error particularly grievous is that he had access to all this historical testimony. He knew what the church had always taught. He had read the creeds and confessions. Yet he dismissed two thousand years of careful theological work with the wave of his hand, claiming that everyone before him had simply misunderstood the Bible. This is the height of arrogance—to assume that you alone have discovered the truth that escaped the apostles, the church fathers, the Reformers, and every orthodox theologian in history.

Why Trinity Matters for Salvation

Some might wonder why we’re making such a big deal about this doctrine. Does it really matter whether God is one being in three persons or three beings in unity? Can’t we just love Jesus and leave the theological details to the scholars? The answer is emphatically no—the Trinity matters immensely for salvation itself.

First, consider what salvation actually is. It’s not merely forgiveness of sins or a ticket to heaven. Salvation is reconciliation with God, adoption into His family, and ultimately, participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). But which God are we reconciled to if there are three separate Gods? Are we adopted by all three, or just one? Can we participate in three separate divine natures?

The Bible teaches that salvation is the work of the one God in all three persons. The Father planned our salvation from eternity past (Ephesians 1:4). The Son accomplished our salvation through His incarnation, death, and resurrection (Hebrews 9:12). The Spirit applies our salvation through regeneration and sanctification (Titus 3:5). This is not three Gods taking turns or dividing up responsibilities. This is the one God saving us in the fullness of His triune being.

If Dake is correct and there are three separate Gods, then salvation becomes a negotiation between deities. The Father-God is angry at sin and demands justice. The Son-God steps in to appease the Father-God’s wrath. The Spirit-God then tries to apply what the Son-God accomplished to satisfy the Father-God. This turns the beautiful truth of divine love into a cosmic good cop/bad cop routine.

But Scripture presents salvation differently. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). Not “one God was in another God” but “God was in Christ.” The judge Himself took our penalty. The lawgiver Himself fulfilled the law on our behalf. The offended party Himself provided the reconciliation. This is only possible if the Father and Son are one God, not separate deities.

Consider the implications for the incarnation. Orthodox Christianity teaches that the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, took on human nature. He didn’t cease to be God; He added humanity to His deity. As the Chalcedonian Creed states, He is “truly God and truly man.” But if the Son is a separate God from the Father, then we have one God becoming human while the other Gods remain in heaven. This would mean that humanity is only united to one-third of the divine committee, not to God Himself.

The atonement also loses its meaning in Dake’s system. The Bible teaches that Christ’s death has infinite value because He is infinite God. One drop of the blood of the God-man is worth more than the entire universe because it’s the blood of the infinite Creator. But if Christ is merely one of three separate Gods, His death has only the value of that one God, not the infinite value of the entire Godhead.

Furthermore, our access to God depends on the Trinity. Jesus said, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). If the Son is a separate God from the Father, then we need one God to introduce us to another God. But why should the Father-God accept the recommendation of the Son-God if they’re separate beings? They might disagree. They might have different standards. The Son-God might approve of us while the Father-God rejects us.

But in orthodox Trinitarianism, there’s no such problem. The Son is the perfect revelation of the Father because they share the same divine nature. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). Not “he that hath seen me hath seen someone similar to the Father” but has seen THE Father. This is only true if Father and Son are one God.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit also becomes problematic in Dake’s system. Paul writes, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16). If the Spirit is a separate God with His own body (as Dake teaches), how can He dwell in millions of believers simultaneously? A being with a body can only be in one place at a time. But if the Spirit is the omnipresent God in His third person, He can indwell all believers everywhere at once.

This indwelling is crucial for salvation. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9). Our assurance of salvation depends on the Spirit’s witness with our spirit that we are children of God (Romans 8:16). But if the Spirit is a separate God from the Father and Son, His testimony might not be reliable. He might be mistaken about what the Father thinks. He might not know the Son’s opinion. The unity of the Trinity is essential for the security of our salvation.

The Practical Implications for Worship and Prayer

The devastating effects of Dake’s false trinity become painfully clear when we consider how it impacts the most basic aspects of Christian life: worship and prayer. Every Sunday, millions of Christians gather to worship God. But which God are they worshiping if Dake is correct? Are they dividing their worship time equally between three separate Gods? Should they sing one-third of their songs to each deity?

Consider the hymns and worship songs that Christians have sung for centuries. “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty… God in three Persons, blessed Trinity.” This classic hymn becomes nonsensical if there are three separate Gods. It should be “Gods in three Persons” (plural) or “blessed Tri-theity.” But that’s not what Christians sing because that’s not what Christians believe.

Or take the Doxology: “Praise God from whom all blessings flow.” Which God? If there are three separate Gods, do all blessings flow from all three, or do they each have their own specialty blessings? The simple act of worship becomes a complex theological puzzle if we accept Dake’s polytheism.

Prayer becomes equally problematic. Jesus taught us to pray “Our Father” (Matthew 6:9). But if the Father is a separate God from the Son and Spirit, are we neglecting the other two Gods when we follow Jesus’ instruction? Should we also pray “Our Son” and “Our Spirit” to avoid showing favoritism? The Lord’s Prayer would need to be replaced with the Lords’ Prayers (plural).

Scripture shows us believers praying to the Father (Matthew 6:9), to the Son (Acts 7:59), and to the Holy Spirit (through the various invocations for the Spirit’s work). This makes perfect sense if they’re all one God—we’re simply addressing God in His different persons. But if they’re three separate Gods, then we’re practicing polytheistic prayer, something strictly forbidden in Scripture.

The early church’s practice confirms the orthodox understanding. The earliest Christian prayer we have outside Scripture, found in the Didache, addresses “Our Father in heaven,” following Jesus’ model, while also acknowledging the Son and Spirit. They didn’t pray to three Gods but to one God in three persons. The ancient liturgies all reflect this same pattern—worship directed to the one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Baptism presents another practical problem. When someone is baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” in whose authority are they actually being baptized if these are three separate Gods? Can one God’s baptism be valid while another’s isn’t? Could someone be accepted by the Father-God through baptism but rejected by the Son-God or Spirit-God?

The Lord’s Supper raises similar questions. Jesus said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood of the new testament” (Matthew 26:26-28). If the Son is a separate God from the Father, is the Father involved in communion at all? Are we communing with one-third of the divine committee while ignoring the other two-thirds?

How Dake’s Error Corrupts Every Other Doctrine

Theology is like a carefully constructed building where every doctrine depends on and supports the others. When you corrupt the foundation—the doctrine of God—the entire structure becomes unstable. Dake’s trinity error doesn’t stand alone; it corrupts every other major Christian doctrine.

Creation

Genesis begins, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The singular “God” created everything. But Dake’s system immediately raises questions. Which God created? Did all three Gods collaborate? Did they divide up the work? John tells us that “all things were made by him [the Word/Christ]; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). Paul adds that all things were created “by him” and “for him” (Colossians 1:16). But if the Son is a separate God who created everything, what did the Father and Spirit do? Stand and watch?

Orthodox theology teaches that creation is the work of the one God in all three persons. The Father is the source, the Son is the agent, and the Spirit is the perfecter of creation. They don’t divide the work because they’re not three separate beings—they’re one God acting in the fullness of His triune being.

Dake’s own teaching emphasizes this division of labor among three separate persons: “God’s plan is revealed in 3 distinct parts being carried out by these 3 persons. One, now known as the Father, holds the headship in the plan of creation and redemption of all things… Another, now called the Son, carries out the representative duties of the plan. God, the Father, creates and redeems BY Jesus Christ… A third person, the Holy Spirit, actually executes the plan under the direction of the Father and the Son.”⁹ This organizational chart of divine labor treats the Trinity like a corporate hierarchy rather than the one God in three persons.

Providence

God’s providential control over creation becomes chaotic in Dake’s system. If three separate Gods are running the universe, who’s in charge? Do they vote on decisions? Can they disagree? When natural disasters occur, which God is responsible? When blessings come, which God should we thank?

Jesus said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17), indicating perfect unity of action. But if they’re separate Gods, their work might conflict. The Father-God might want to bless someone while the Son-God wants to discipline them. The Spirit-God might have a third opinion entirely. The universe would be governed by committee, not by the sovereign God.

Revelation

How do we know God’s will if there are three separate Gods? Might they reveal different things? The Bible is called God’s Word (singular), not Gods’ Words (plural). But if three separate Gods inspired Scripture, we’d need to identify which God said what and whether they all agree.

Jesus said, “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10). This makes sense if Father and Son are one God—the Father speaks through the Son because they share the same divine nature. But if they’re separate Gods, why is one God speaking for another? Can’t each God speak for Himself?

Incarnation

The incarnation—God becoming man—is the central miracle of Christianity. But which God became man if there are three separate Gods? Only the Son took on human nature. Does this mean two-thirds of the Gods remained distant from humanity while one-third became involved? Are we saved by the God who became human or by the Gods who didn’t?

Orthodox theology teaches that the one God, in the person of the Son, took on human nature while remaining fully divine. The Father and Spirit didn’t become incarnate, but they weren’t absent—the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily (Colossians 2:9). This is only possible if the three persons share one divine essence.

Sanctification

The Christian life becomes impossibly complicated if we’re relating to three separate Gods. Paul writes that we’re being transformed into Christ’s image (2 Corinthians 3:18). But what about the Father’s image and the Spirit’s image? Should we be one-third like each God? How do we become like three different Gods simultaneously?

The fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) would be the fruit of just one God, not all three. The gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12) would be from one God while the other two Gods might have their own separate gift lists. Spiritual growth would become a juggling act, trying to please and become like three separate deities.

The Historical Battle Against This Exact Heresy

What makes Dake’s error particularly inexcusable is that the church has faced and defeated this exact heresy before—multiple times. Dake wasn’t introducing a new understanding; he was resurrecting an old error that had been thoroughly examined and rejected centuries ago.

The first major confrontation came with the teaching of Marcion in the second century. Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament and the God revealed by Jesus were two different Gods—a harsh creator God and a loving redeemer God. The church responded decisively, affirming that the Father of Jesus Christ is the same God who created the world and gave the law to Moses. There is only one God, not two or three.

In the third century, Sabellius went to the opposite extreme, teaching that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were just three modes or masks worn by one divine person. This modalism (also called Sabellianism) was also rejected because it denied the distinct personhood of Father, Son, and Spirit. The church had to navigate between the error of dividing God into separate beings and the error of denying the distinction of persons.

The most significant battle came in the fourth century with Arius, who taught that the Son was a created being, separate from and subordinate to the Father. This led to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which produced the Nicene Creed specifically to exclude Arian theology. The key phrase was that the Son is “homoousios” (of the same substance) with the Father—not “homoiousios” (of similar substance) but the very same divine essence.

The battle wasn’t over. Some tried to find a middle ground, saying the Son was “like” the Father but not the same substance. These semi-Arians were also rejected. The church insisted on the full deity and full unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD extended the same affirmation to the Holy Spirit, completing the orthodox formulation of the Trinity.

Throughout these controversies, certain biblical truths remained non-negotiable: There is only one God (monotheism). The Father is fully God. The Son is fully God. The Holy Spirit is fully God. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father or the Son. These truths, held together, form the doctrine of the Trinity.

The church fathers who fought these battles understood what was at stake. Athanasius, the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy, spent much of his life in exile for refusing to compromise on the Trinity. Why? Because he understood that if Christ is not truly God, then we are not truly saved. If the Spirit is not truly God, then we are not truly sanctified. If there are multiple Gods, then we are polytheists, not Christians.

Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, wrote eloquently about the Trinity: “No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One.” This is the mystery of the Trinity—not the contradiction that Dake created by teaching three separate Gods, but the profound truth that the one God exists eternally as three distinct persons.

The Reformers, though they broke with Rome on many issues, stood firmly with the ancient church on the Trinity. Luther wrote extensively against anti-trinitarians. Calvin devoted large sections of his Institutes to defending the orthodox doctrine. The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession—all affirm the same trinitarian faith that the church has held from the beginning.

Even groups that disagree on almost everything else—Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants of all varieties—unite in affirming the Trinity. This isn’t because they’re all following human tradition blindly. It’s because this is what Scripture clearly teaches when properly understood, and it’s essential to the Christian faith.

Dake’s Arguments Refuted Point by Point

To ensure that no one is deceived by Dake’s arguments, let’s examine and refute his major claims systematically. Each of his arguments might sound plausible in isolation, but when examined carefully against Scripture and logic, they collapse entirely.

Argument 1: “The word ‘one’ (echad) means unity, not singularity”

Dake’s Claim: The Hebrew word echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 means “united” not “single,” proving that multiple Gods are united together.

Refutation: While echad can indicate composite unity in some contexts, its meaning must be determined by context, not by all possible uses. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the context is crystal clear—Moses is distinguishing Israel’s monotheism from pagan polytheism. The surrounding nations believed in multiple gods. Against this background, Moses declares that Israel’s God is ONE, not many.

Furthermore, when God Himself uses echad to describe Himself, He makes the meaning unmistakable: “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me” (Deuteronomy 32:39). Notice—”no god WITH me”—ruling out other Gods existing alongside Him. Isaiah records God saying, “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isaiah 45:5). The “one” of the Shema means exactly what it appears to mean—numerical singularity.

Argument 2: “Three persons can’t be one person—that’s illogical”

Dake’s Claim: The idea of three persons being one person is ridiculous and contradictory.

Refutation: This is a straw man argument. Orthodox Christianity has NEVER taught that three persons are one person. We teach that three persons are one BEING or ESSENCE. Dake either profoundly misunderstood basic theology or deliberately misrepresented it to make his own view seem reasonable.

The distinction between person and being is crucial. Your being is WHAT you are (human nature). Your person is WHO you are (your individual identity). Humans are one being and one person. God is one being and three persons. This is mysterious but not contradictory. A contradiction would be saying God is one person and three persons, or one being and three beings. But saying He’s one being and three persons involves no logical contradiction.

Argument 3: “Each person must have a body, soul, and spirit”

Dake’s Claim: Since humans have body, soul, and spirit, and we’re made in God’s image, each person of the Godhead must have their own body, soul, and spirit.

Refutation: This fundamentally misunderstands what “image of God” means. The image of God in humanity doesn’t refer to physical composition but to qualities like rationality, morality, creativity, and dominion. Genesis 1:26-27 links the image of God directly to having dominion over creation, not to having a body.

Moreover, Jesus explicitly stated, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24)—not “God has a spirit” but “God IS a Spirit.” This describes God’s essential nature as spiritual, not physical. When the Bible speaks of God’s “hand” or “eyes,” it’s using anthropomorphic language to help us understand God’s actions, not describing literal body parts.

Argument 4: “The plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 prove multiple Gods”

Dake’s Claim: When God says, “Let us make man in our image,” the plural pronouns prove there are multiple separate Gods.

Refutation: The plural pronouns do indicate plurality within the Godhead—this is actually evidence FOR the Trinity, not against it. But notice that while the pronouns are plural (“us,” “our”), the verse still says “in THE image”—singular, not “images.” If there were multiple Gods with different images, it would say “in our images.”

Furthermore, the very next verse (Genesis 1:27) uses singular pronouns: “So God created man in HIS own image, in the image of God created HE him.” The switch from plural to singular in consecutive verses makes perfect sense if God is one being in multiple persons, but it’s contradictory if there are multiple separate Gods.

Argument 5: “Jesus and the Father are separate, so they must be separate Gods”

Dake’s Claim: Since Jesus prayed to the Father and sat at His right hand, they must be separate beings, therefore separate Gods.

Refutation: The distinction of persons is not in dispute—orthodox Christianity fully affirms that Father and Son are distinct persons. The question is whether they’re separate BEINGS. Jesus’ ability to pray to the Father demonstrates the distinction of persons, not separation of being.

When Jesus says, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30), He uses the plural verb “are” (esmen), showing they are distinct persons, but the neuter “one” (hen), showing they are one in essence. The Jews understood this as a claim to deity and tried to stone Him. They wouldn’t have reacted this way to a claim of mere cooperation between separate Gods.

The Damage to Biblical Interpretation

One of the most serious consequences of Dake’s trinity error is how it forces a distorted reading of countless biblical passages. Once you accept the premise of three separate Gods, you have to reinterpret Scripture after Scripture to fit this false framework. The Bible becomes a confused and contradictory book rather than the coherent revelation of the one true God.

Consider how Dake’s view affects our reading of John’s Gospel. John begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). In orthodox understanding, this teaches that the Word (Christ) was with God (distinct in person) and was God (one in essence). But in Dake’s system, this would mean one God was with another God, and that second God was a God—turning John’s profound statement about the eternal Son into a confusing description of two separate deities.

Or take Thomas’s confession when he saw the risen Christ: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). If Christ is a separate God from the Father, Thomas is practicing blatant polytheism, worshiping multiple Gods. Yet Jesus doesn’t correct him. In fact, Jesus affirms this confession. This only makes sense if Christ shares the same divine essence as the Father.

Paul’s letters become especially problematic. He writes, “There is one body, and one Spirit… One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:4-6). If we follow Dake’s logic, Paul is saying there’s one Spirit-God, one Lord-God (the Son), and one Father-God—that’s three Gods, not one. But Paul, a strictly monotheistic Jew, would never teach three Gods. He’s describing the one God in His three persons.

The Book of Revelation presents similar problems for Dake’s view. God is called “the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending” (Revelation 1:8). But Christ also claims this title: “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11). If they’re separate Gods, we have two Alphas and Omegas, two firsts and lasts. But by definition, there can only be one first and one last. This only makes sense if Father and Son are one God.

The Old Testament prophecies about Christ become incomprehensible in Dake’s system. Isaiah prophesies that the Messiah will be called “The mighty God, The everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6). If the Son is a separate God from the Father, how can He be called the Father? But if they share the same divine essence, the Son can reveal the Father perfectly because they are one God.

The Connection to Other Heresies

Dake’s trinity error didn’t exist in isolation. It opened the door to a whole constellation of other false teachings. Once you abandon the biblical doctrine of God, everything else begins to unravel. Like dominoes falling in sequence, one error leads to another until the entire structure of Christian truth collapses.

His teaching that God has a physical body necessarily limited God to a specific location, denying His omnipresence. If each person of the Godhead has a body, they can only be in one place at a time. This means the Father is stuck in one location in heaven, the Son in another, and the Spirit in a third. The God who fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24) is reduced to a located being who must travel from place to place.

This connects directly to Dake’s errors about God’s omniscience. If God must “come down” to see what’s happening on earth (as Dake interpreted Genesis 11:5), then He doesn’t know everything. A God who must investigate to learn facts is not the God of the Bible who declares “the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10).

Dake’s polytheism also fed into the Word of Faith movement’s “little gods” doctrine. If there are multiple Gods, and humans are made in their image, then humans can aspire to godhood themselves. Kenneth Copeland, who was influenced by Dake’s teachings, famously declared that God “created us to be gods of this world.” This blasphemous teaching is a logical extension of Dake’s polytheistic system.

The prosperity gospel also finds support in Dake’s errors. If there are three separate Gods, perhaps one is the God of wealth, another of health, and another of spiritual things. Believers can then bargain with different Gods for different blessings. This turns Christianity into a pagan system of divine manipulation rather than humble submission to the one sovereign God.

The Pastoral Consequences: Real People, Real Damage

Beyond the theological problems, we must consider the real-world impact of Dake’s false teaching on actual believers. This isn’t just an academic exercise—real people have had their faith shipwrecked by these errors. Pastors report countless cases of confusion, division, and spiritual damage caused by Dake’s teaching.

Consider the young believer who grows up using the Dake Bible, absorbing the notes along with Scripture. They learn to think of God as three separate beings. When they encounter orthodox Christian teaching, they’re confused. Which is true? The Bible they’ve trusted seems to teach three Gods, but their church teaches one God. Many experience a crisis of faith, not knowing what to believe.

Marriages have been strained when one spouse accepts Dake’s teaching while the other holds to orthodoxy. How do you pray together when you disagree about who God is? How do you raise children in the faith when parents can’t agree on the most fundamental doctrine? These aren’t theoretical problems—they’re real struggles in real families.

Churches have split over these issues. A Sunday school teacher starts using the Dake Bible and begins teaching three separate Gods. The pastor objects. The congregation divides. Some side with the teacher, saying, “It’s right there in the Bible notes!” Others side with the pastor, but the damage is done. Trust is broken. Unity is shattered. All because of Dake’s errors.

Missionaries report encountering Dake’s influence around the world. In developing nations where theological education is limited, the Dake Bible is sometimes the only study Bible available. New believers, hungry for understanding, absorb Dake’s polytheism along with the gospel. Missionaries must spend precious time correcting these errors instead of advancing the gospel.

Seminary professors describe students arriving for theological education already indoctrinated in Dake’s errors. These students must essentially be deprogrammed, carefully taught to distinguish between Dake’s notes and biblical truth. Some resist, having been taught that traditional theology is corrupt and only Dake discovered the truth. The educational process becomes remedial rather than constructive.

The Warning Signs: How to Recognize Dake’s Influence

Given the widespread distribution of the Dake Bible and related materials, it’s important to recognize the warning signs of his influence. Whether you’re a pastor, teacher, or concerned believer, knowing these indicators can help you identify and address the problem before it causes serious damage.

Language Clues: People influenced by Dake often use specific phrases that reveal their polytheistic understanding. They might say “the three Gods” instead of “the three persons.” They’ll talk about the Trinity as “working together in unity” rather than being one in essence. They might refer to God having a “spirit body” or needing to “travel” from heaven to earth.

Interpretive Patterns: Watch for hyperliteral interpretation of anthropomorphic language. If someone insists that God literally has hands, feet, and eyes, or that He must physically “come down” to see things, they’re likely influenced by Dake. They’ll also perform word studies that ignore context, especially on words like “one” and “God.”

Defensive Attitudes: Those deeply influenced by Dake often display a defensive, sometimes hostile attitude toward traditional Christian doctrine. They’ve been taught that the church has been wrong for 2,000 years and only Dake discovered the truth. They might accuse orthodox Christians of following “man-made traditions” rather than the Bible.

Biblical Confusion: People under Dake’s influence often struggle with passages that clearly teach monotheism. They’ll try to explain away verses like “there is no God beside me” or resort to complicated interpretations of simple statements. They might avoid reading Isaiah 43-45 or dismiss these chapters as “difficult to understand.”

Prayer Problems: Listen to how people pray. Those influenced by Dake might address prayers separately to Father, Son, and Spirit as if talking to three different beings. They might express uncertainty about which “God” to address or worry about showing favoritism in their prayers.

Worship Confusion: In worship settings, Dake’s influence might manifest as confusion about whom to worship. People might segregate worship songs, thinking some are for the Father, others for the Son, and still others for the Spirit. They might struggle with Trinitarian hymns or doxologies that speak of one God in three persons.

The Path Forward: Correcting the Error with Love

Discovering that someone has been influenced by Dake’s false teaching requires a pastoral response that combines truth with love. Simply attacking their beliefs or mocking their confusion will only drive them deeper into error. We must remember that many who accept Dake’s teaching are sincere believers who have been deceived, not heretics who knowingly reject truth.

Start with common ground. Affirm their love for God’s Word and their desire to understand truth. Acknowledge that the Trinity is indeed a mystery that has challenged Christians throughout history. Don’t minimize the difficulty of understanding how one God exists in three persons. This builds trust and shows that you respect their sincere desire to know God.

Use Scripture carefully and systematically. Don’t just quote proof texts—work through entire passages in context. Show them how Isaiah 43-45 repeatedly affirms that only one God exists. Walk through John’s Gospel, demonstrating how Jesus’ claims to deity make sense only if He shares the Father’s essence. Let Scripture itself correct the error rather than relying on human authority.

Address the historical issue honestly. Explain that the church’s trinitarian formulations weren’t invented but discovered—drawn out of Scripture in response to errors like the one Dake teaches. Show them that great minds throughout Christian history have affirmed one God in three persons, not because of tradition but because of biblical fidelity.

Be patient with the process. People who have built their entire understanding of God on Dake’s foundation can’t simply switch to orthodox theology overnight. It takes time to rebuild theological understanding from the ground up. Expect questions, confusion, and even resistance. Continue teaching truth in love, trusting the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

Provide good resources. Replace the Dake Bible with a reliable study Bible like the ESV Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, or MacArthur Study Bible. Recommend basic theology books that clearly explain the Trinity, such as Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” or R.C. Sproul’s “The Mystery of the Trinity.” These resources can help rebuild proper theological understanding.

Most importantly, pray. The doctrine of God isn’t just an intellectual issue—it’s a spiritual one. Only the Holy Spirit can truly open blind eyes and correct false understanding. Pray that God would reveal Himself as He truly is—one God in three persons, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Conclusion: Standing for Truth in Love

As we conclude this extensive examination of Dake’s Trinity disaster, we must remember why this matters so deeply. The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t a peripheral issue we can afford to get wrong. It’s the foundation of our entire faith. If we’re wrong about who God is, we’re wrong about everything.

Dake didn’t merely adjust our understanding of the Trinity—he demolished it entirely, replacing the one true God with three separate Gods. This isn’t a minor interpretive difference but a fundamental departure from Christianity into polytheism. When someone transforms monotheism into tritheism while still calling it Christianity, every faithful believer must stand up and say, “This is not the faith once delivered to the saints.”

The evidence is overwhelming. Dake explicitly taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings with their own bodies, souls, and spirits. He redefined “one” to mean “unity” rather than singularity. He rejected 2,000 years of consistent Christian teaching. He forced Scripture into his polytheistic framework, creating confusion and contradiction where God intended clarity and truth.

The consequences are severe. Worship becomes confused when we don’t know if we’re worshiping one God or three. Prayer becomes complicated when we’re unsure which God to address. Salvation becomes uncertain when we don’t know if all three Gods agree about our status. The entire Christian life becomes an exercise in theological juggling rather than simple devotion to the one true God.

But there is hope. Truth has a power that error can never match. The same Scriptures that Dake twisted to support his polytheism actually teach glorious monotheism when properly understood. The God who declares “I am the LORD, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:5) continues to reveal Himself as the one true God who exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

For those who have been deceived by Dake’s teaching, there is grace. God is patient with our errors and gentle in His corrections. He knows that we are dust, prone to confusion and easily deceived. But He has given us His Word, His Spirit, and His church to guide us into truth. No one needs to remain in the darkness of false doctrine when the light of God’s truth shines so brightly.

For pastors and teachers, there is responsibility. We who teach will receive stricter judgment (James 3:1). We cannot afford to be passive when wolves in sheep’s clothing devour the flock with false doctrine. We must actively teach truth, carefully correct error, and lovingly restore those who have been deceived. The health of Christ’s body depends on our faithfulness to this calling.

For the church as a whole, there is urgency. Dake’s influence continues to spread through his Bible and related materials. New generations are being exposed to his polytheistic teaching without understanding its heretical nature. We must sound the alarm clearly and consistently: the Dake Bible teaches false doctrine about the very nature of God.

Yet our response must be characterized by love, not hatred; truth, not harshness; restoration, not condemnation. We’re not fighting against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against spiritual wickedness that seeks to corrupt God’s truth. Our weapons are not carnal but spiritual—the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, wielded with prayer, patience, and love.

The ancient creed says it well: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.” This is the faith of Abraham, who worshiped one God. This is the faith of Moses, who declared God’s oneness to Israel. This is the faith of the prophets, who proclaimed “there is no God beside me.” This is the faith of the apostles, who worshiped Jesus as God while maintaining strict monotheism. This is the faith of the church throughout history. This is our faith.

Against this faith, Dake’s polytheism cannot stand. Three separate Gods with separate bodies, souls, and spirits is not Christianity—it’s a corruption that must be exposed and rejected. We don’t say this with joy but with sorrow, knowing that many sincere believers have been led astray. But love requires truth, and truth demands that we clearly state: Dake’s Trinity is not the Trinity at all—it’s polytheism dressed in Christian vocabulary.

Footnotes

¹ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “89 Proofs of A Divine Trinity.”

² Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “89 Proofs of A Divine Trinity,” point 1.

³ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “One, Two, or More in Unity,” point 24.

⁴ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), section on God’s body.

⁵ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “Omnipresent” entry.

⁶ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), list of unscriptural views, point 5.

⁷ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “89 Proofs of A Divine Trinity,” point 18.

⁸ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “One, Two, or More in Unity,” point 5.

⁹ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “The Drafting of God’s Plan.”

¹⁰ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man: Contained in Fifty-Two Lessons, One for Each Week of the Year (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 448.

¹¹ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man: Contained in Fifty-Two Lessons, One for Each Week of the Year (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 55.

¹² Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man: Contained in Fifty-Two Lessons, One for Each Week of the Year (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 448.

¹³ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man: Contained in Fifty-Two Lessons, One for Each Week of the Year (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 61.

¹⁴ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man: Contained in Fifty-Two Lessons, One for Each Week of the Year (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 56.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.