Chapter 6: Returning to Orthodox Biblical Omnipresence

Introduction: The Need for Restoration

The damage done by Finis Dake’s materialistic conception of God extends far beyond academic theology classrooms. When we reduce the infinite God to a being with a physical body who “goes from place to place like anybody else,” we haven’t merely made a minor theological adjustment—we’ve fundamentally altered the nature of the God we worship. This final chapter seeks to reconstruct the orthodox biblical doctrine of omnipresence, not as a mere intellectual exercise, but as an essential restoration project for the health of the church and the glory of God.

Consider for a moment the practical implications of what we believe about God’s presence. The mother praying desperately for her wayward child needs to know that God hears her prayers instantly, not that He might be traveling somewhere else in His supposed physical body. The missionary entering an unreached village needs confidence that God is already there, preparing hearts and working providentially, not arriving after the fact like a celestial visitor. The dying saint needs assurance that God is immediately present in their final moments, not hoping that He’ll make the journey from heaven in time.

The restoration of orthodox omnipresence isn’t merely about correcting Dake’s errors—it’s about recovering the God of Scripture who declares, “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). This is the God who has sustained His people through persecution, guided them through darkness, and assured them of His constant presence through every trial.

Section 1: The Historic Orthodox Position

Apostolic Teaching

The apostles, taught by Christ Himself and inspired by the Holy Spirit, consistently proclaimed God’s omnipresence as fundamental to the faith. The Apostle Paul, standing before the philosophers at Athens, declared the true nature of God in contrast to their localized deities: “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:24-25, NKJV).

Paul continues with one of the most profound statements about God’s omnipresence in all of Scripture: “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).

Notice how Paul doesn’t say we live and move “near” Him or “with” Him, but “in” Him. This prepositional choice is crucial. We exist within the sphere of God’s being, not as pantheism would suggest (that we are part of God), but as creatures sustained every moment by the God who is immediately present to all creation. The apostolic teaching makes no room for a God who travels from place to place in a body.

The Apostle John, who leaned on Jesus’ breast and received the Revelation, records Christ’s own words about His divine presence: “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). Even while speaking to Nicodemus on earth, Jesus claims to be “in heaven”—a statement impossible for Dake’s limited, bodily God, but perfectly consistent with divine omnipresence.

Patristic Consensus

The early church fathers, many of whom learned from the apostles or their immediate disciples, uniformly affirmed God’s omnipresence as essential to orthodox faith. Clement of Rome, writing around 96 AD, declared: “The Creator and Father of all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and their beauty. Let us therefore come to Him with holiness of spirit, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, loving our gracious and merciful Father, who sees all things and hears all things, and from whom nothing is hidden” (1 Clement 28).

Ignatius of Antioch, martyred around 108 AD, wrote to the Magnesians: “There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him. He is everywhere present and nowhere absent” (Epistle to the Magnesians, 8).

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (circa 155 AD), explicitly refutes the kind of localized deity that Dake promotes: “But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. He is everywhere present by His power and His divinity” (First Apology, Chapter 10).

Irenaeus of Lyons, writing against the Gnostic heresies around 180 AD, beautifully articulates the orthodox position: “For His greatness lacks nothing, but contains all things. He is everywhere and nowhere. Everywhere by His presence and power; nowhere, as not being circumscribed by anything. All things are in Him, and He is in none as though contained” (Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 1).

Augustine’s Contribution

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) provided perhaps the most influential articulation of divine omnipresence in the patristic period. In his Confessions, he wrestles with understanding God’s presence: “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, Book X, Chapter 27). This distinguishes between God’s objective presence and our subjective awareness—a crucial distinction that Dake fails to make.

In his work “On the Trinity,” Augustine explains: “God is not distributed 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 whole in the whole, and whole in every part of it. This is possible to no body, but only to God who is not a body” (On the Trinity, Book VI, Chapter 7). Here Augustine directly contradicts Dake’s notion of God having a body that must travel from place to place.

Augustine further clarifies in his letter to Dardanus: “God is not contained in any place. If He were, the place containing Him would be greater than He; and this is not true of anything. God contains all things, and is contained by none. He is wholly everywhere, and contained nowhere. He is present to all things, but not defined by them” (Letter 187).

Medieval Refinements

The medieval theologians, building on the foundation laid by the fathers, brought philosophical precision to the doctrine of omnipresence. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his Proslogion argues that God must be omnipresent by necessity of His perfect being: “You are present everywhere, Lord, and always. And since nothing exists without You, and all things exist in You, nothing can hide from Your presence” (Proslogion, Chapter 13).

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) provided the most systematic treatment of divine omnipresence in medieval theology. 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. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power. Now since God is very being by His essence, created being must be His proper effect. This effect God causes not only when things first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being. Therefore, as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it. But being is innermost in each thing and most fundamentally inherent in all things. Hence God is in all things, and innermostly” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 8, Article 1).

Aquinas carefully distinguishes three modes of God’s presence that became standard in orthodox theology: “God is said to be in a thing in three ways: first, as an efficient cause, giving things their being and preserving them; second, by His presence, insofar as all things are bare and open to His eyes; third, by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being” (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 8, Article 3).

Reformation Clarity

The Protestant Reformers, while breaking with Rome on many issues, maintained complete continuity with orthodox teaching on God’s omnipresence. Martin Luther strongly affirmed divine omnipresence, writing: “God is substantially present everywhere, in and through all creatures, in all their parts and places, so that the world is full of God and He fills all, but without His being encompassed and surrounded by it. He is at the same time outside and above all creatures” (That These Words of Christ Still Stand Firm, 1527).

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, provides extensive treatment of omnipresence: “When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is not bounded by any limits, that His essence is diffused through all parts of the universe, and that there is no portion of space which He does not fill. It were absurd to imagine that He moves from place to place, seeing He fills all things” (Institutes, Book I, Chapter 13, Section 27).

Calvin explicitly rejects the kind of anthropomorphic limitations Dake promotes: “They who imagine that God has a body, or ascribe to Him human affections, darken His glory by their carnal and foolish imaginations. For what can be more absurd than to seek to measure Him who is immeasurable, or to circumscribe within bodily dimensions Him who is infinite?” (Institutes, Book I, Chapter 13, Section 1).

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) crystallized Reformed teaching on omnipresence: “God is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute… In His sight all things are open and manifest” (Chapter 2, Section 1).

Puritan Insights

The Puritans, known for their theological precision and practical application, consistently upheld orthodox omnipresence. Stephen Charnock’s massive work “The Existence and Attributes of God” (1682) contains one of the most thorough treatments of omnipresence in English. He writes: “God is essentially everywhere; not only in regard of his substance, but in regard of his knowledge, power, and providence. He is not everywhere by parts, as bodies are, whereof one part is in one place, and another part in another place; but God is wholly everywhere” (Discourse IV: On the Omnipresence of God).

Charnock directly addresses the error that Dake would later promote: “To say God is not everywhere, is to say he is finite; and to say he is finite, is to say he is not God. If he be limited, he is limited by something, and that which limits him must be superior to him” (Discourse IV: On the Omnipresence of God).

John Owen, perhaps the greatest of Puritan theologians, emphasized that denying God’s omnipresence effectively denies His deity: “Take away immensity from God, and you take away his divinity. He who is not everywhere is somewhere; and he who is somewhere is in a place; and he who is in a place is circumscribed and finite” (Vindiciae Evangelicae, Chapter 3).

Modern Reaffirmations

Throughout the modern period, orthodox Christianity has consistently maintained the biblical doctrine of omnipresence against various challenges. Charles Hodge, the great Princeton theologian, wrote in his Systematic Theology: “The omnipresence of God is the fact that God is everywhere present. This follows from His immensity. A being who fills all space must be present in every part of space. The word immensity refers to the transcendental relation of God to space; omnipresence refers to His actual presence in every portion of space” (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 5).

B.B. Warfield emphasized that omnipresence is not merely a philosophical construct but a biblical necessity: “The Scriptures everywhere represent God as present in every part of His universe, not by virtue of His knowledge merely, or by virtue of His power merely, but in the totality of His being. He does not distribute Himself through the universe, part here and part there; He is in His complete being present everywhere” (Biblical and Theological Studies, Chapter on “The Divine Attributes”).

A.W. Tozer, writing for a popular audience in the 20th century, captured the practical importance of omnipresence: “God is everywhere here, close to everything, next to everyone. ‘The Lord is near to all who call upon Him,’ says the psalmist. And Paul assures us that He is not far from any one of us. In Him we live and move and have our being. We cannot escape Him” (The Knowledge of the Holy, Chapter 13).

Section 2: Key Biblical Texts Properly Interpreted

Psalm 139: The Inescapable Presence

No passage of Scripture more powerfully articulates God’s omnipresence than Psalm 139. 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. You comprehend my path and my lying down, And are acquainted with all my ways” (Psalm 139:1-3, NKJV).

But omniscience flows from omnipresence. God knows because He is present. David continues: “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).

Notice the comprehensiveness of David’s language. He doesn’t say God “can go” to these places or “will follow” him there. The verb is present tense—”You are there.” Whether in heaven or Sheol (the realm of the dead), whether at dawn’s first light or in the depths of the sea, God is already present. This directly contradicts Dake’s notion that God must travel from place to place in a body.

David even contemplates the impossible—hiding in darkness: “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). Physical limitations like darkness, which would obscure a bodily being’s vision, are meaningless to the omnipresent God.

The psalm reaches its climax with God’s intimate involvement in human formation: “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth” (Psalm 139:13-15, NKJV).

How could God intricately form each person in the womb if He were limited to one location in a physical body? The very act of creation requires immediate presence, not remote control. Every child being formed in every womb across the earth experiences God’s direct, immediate, creative presence—something impossible for Dake’s limited deity.

Jeremiah 23:23-24: Filling Heaven and Earth

Through Jeremiah, God directly addresses false prophets who imagined they could hide their deceptions from Him: “‘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).

The Hebrew word translated “fill” (male’) means to fill completely, to pervade entirely. God doesn’t merely “influence” heaven and earth or have “access” to them—He fills them. This is not pantheism, where God is identical with creation, but panentheism properly understood—everything exists within the sphere of God’s being while remaining distinct from His essence.

God’s rhetorical questions demand negative answers. He is not merely a local deity (“near at hand”) but also transcendent (“afar off”). No one can hide from Him because there is no place where He is not present. This passage directly refutes Dake’s claim that God has to travel to different locations. If God fills heaven and earth, there is nowhere He needs to go—He is already there.

The context is crucial. False prophets were claiming to speak for God while living in rebellion, thinking their deceptions were hidden. But God declares His omnipresence as the foundation for His omniscience: He knows because He is present. A God who had to travel from place to place could indeed be deceived by events occurring in His absence—but the true God fills all things.

Acts 17:27-28: Living and Moving in Him

Paul’s sermon at the Areopagus provides one of the New Testament’s clearest statements on omnipresence. Speaking to pagan philosophers accustomed to localized deities dwelling in temples, Paul declares: “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, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring'” (Acts 17:27-28, NKJV).

Paul’s statement “He is not far from each one of us” uses the Greek ou makran, meaning “not distant” or “not remote.” But Paul goes further—we don’t merely live “near” God or “with” God, but “in” Him (en auto). The preposition is crucial. We exist within the sphere of God’s being. Every movement we make, every breath we take, occurs within the omnipresent God.

Paul even quotes the pagan poet Aratus to make his point, showing that even pagans recognized this truth dimly. The phrase “in Him we live and move and have our being” encompasses all of existence. Life itself (zao), movement (kineo), and existence (eimi) all occur within God’s omnipresent being. This is impossible if God is confined to a body in a specific location.

Consider the implications: every person on earth simultaneously lives and moves in God. How could this be true if God were localized in heaven with a physical body, as Dake claims? The only way Paul’s statement makes sense is if God is truly omnipresent—immediately present to all creation at every moment.

1 Kings 8:27: Transcendent Yet Present

At the dedication of the temple, Solomon grapples with the paradox of the infinite God dwelling in a finite structure: “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).

Solomon recognizes that even “the heaven of heavens”—the highest conceivable realm—cannot contain God. The Hebrew word translated “contain” (kul) means to hold, to enclose, to comprehend. If the infinite heavens cannot contain God, how much less could a physical body contain Him, as Dake suggests?

Yet Solomon also knows God will be specially present in the temple: “That Your eyes may be open toward this temple night and day, toward the place of which You said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that You may hear the prayer which Your servant makes toward this place” (1 Kings 8:29, NKJV). This is not a contradiction but a recognition of different modes of divine presence—God is essentially present everywhere but covenantally present in special ways in specific places.

Solomon’s prayer demonstrates mature theological understanding. He knows God cannot be localized to the temple, yet God can manifest His presence specially there. This balance is lost in Dake’s system, where God is reduced to a being who must physically travel to be present anywhere.

Isaiah 57:15: High and Holy Yet With the Contrite

Isaiah presents the stunning paradox of divine transcendence and immanence: “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, To revive the spirit of the humble, And to revive the heart of the contrite ones'” (Isaiah 57:15, NKJV).

God simultaneously dwells in the “high and holy place” (transcendence) and “with him who has a contrite and humble spirit” (immanence). The Hebrew word for “dwell” (shakan) means to settle down, to abide, to remain. God doesn’t visit the contrite occasionally when He can spare time from heaven—He dwells with them continuously.

How could God dwell both in the highest heaven and with every contrite heart on earth if He were confined to a physical body? Dake’s system requires God to choose—He can be in heaven or with the humble, but not both simultaneously. But Isaiah declares both are true because God is omnipresent.

This passage also reveals the relational dimension of omnipresence. While God is essentially present everywhere, He is specially present with the humble and contrite. This special presence doesn’t negate His essential omnipresence but represents an additional blessing of covenant relationship.

Colossians 1:16-17: Sustaining Presence

Paul’s christological hymn in Colossians reveals Christ’s omnipresent, sustaining role in creation: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:16-17, NKJV).

The phrase “in Him all things consist” (sunistemi) means to hold together, to cohere, to maintain. Christ doesn’t merely create and abandon—He continuously holds every atom, every galaxy, every spiritual being in existence. This requires immediate presence, not remote control. If Christ had to travel in a body from place to place, creation would collapse in His absence.

This passage destroys Dake’s notion of a localized deity. Every particle in the universe is held together by Christ’s immediate presence. The farthest galaxy and the smallest subatomic particle equally depend on His sustaining presence. This is only possible through omnipresence.

Ephesians 4:10: Filling All Things

Paul writes of the ascended Christ: “He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things” (Ephesians 4:10, NKJV). The purpose of Christ’s ascension wasn’t to become localized in heaven but to “fill all things” (pleroo ta panta).

This filling is not metaphorical but describes Christ’s omnipresent rule and presence throughout creation. The ascended Christ doesn’t abandon earth for heaven—He fills both. This directly contradicts Dake’s view that would confine the ascended Christ to a physical location in heaven.

Matthew 18:20 and 28:20: Christ’s Promised Presence

Jesus makes two remarkable promises about His presence with believers: “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20, NKJV) and “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, NKJV).

Consider the implications of these promises. At any given moment, millions of groups of believers gather in Christ’s name around the world. Christ promises to be present with each group. How could He fulfill this promise if He were confined to a physical body that could only be in one location? The only way Christ can be present with every gathering of believers simultaneously is through divine omnipresence.

The promise “I am with you always” uses the Greek phrase “pasas tas hemeras”—literally “all the days.” Not just special days, not just when He can visit, but every single day until the age ends. This requires omnipresence, not occasional visitation.

Section 3: Systematic Theology of Omnipresence

Relation to Divine Simplicity

The doctrine of divine simplicity—that God is not composed of parts—directly supports omnipresence. If God were composed of parts like a physical body, as Dake suggests, then parts of God could be in different places, but God Himself could not be wholly present everywhere. But since God is simple (not composite), wherever God is present, He is wholly present.

Thomas Aquinas explains: “God is in all things by His essence, not as part of their essence, but as an agent is present to that upon which it acts. Now God causes the existence of all things immediately. Therefore, God must be present wherever anything exists, and present in His entire essence, not partially” (Summa Theologica I, q.8, a.3).

Divine simplicity means God doesn’t have physical parts that could be distributed through space. He is pure spirit, pure actuality, without composition. This is why Scripture says “God is Spirit” (John 4:24, NKJV), not “God has a spirit” as though spirit were one component among others. Being simple, God is either wholly present or wholly absent—and Scripture uniformly testifies He is wholly present everywhere.

Connection with Immutability

God’s immutability (unchangeableness) necessitates His omnipresence. If God moved from place to place as Dake claims, He would be constantly changing location, violating His immutability. Scripture declares: “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6, NKJV) and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV).

Movement involves change—from being here to being there, from this state to that state. But the immutable God cannot change. Therefore, He must be omnipresent, not needing to move because He is already everywhere. As Stephen Charnock notes: “God cannot be said to move from place to place who is equally in all places. Motion is a change of place, but there can be no change in Him who fills all places” (The Existence and Attributes of God).

This connection between immutability and omnipresence reveals another fatal flaw in Dake’s system. A God who travels from place to place would be constantly changing, making Him unreliable. How could we trust His promises if He’s constantly changing location and potentially absent when we need Him?

Foundation for Providence

God’s providential government of the universe requires omnipresence. Providence means God not only created all things but continuously sustains and governs them. Scripture teaches: “He upholds all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3, NKJV) and “In Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17, NKJV).

Consider what providence entails: God simultaneously sustains billions of galaxies, governs the motion of every subatomic particle, directs the course of history, numbers the hairs on billions of heads, feeds every sparrow, and clothes every lily. How could a localized God in a physical body accomplish this? He would need to be constantly traveling at infinite speed—but then He wouldn’t truly be localized.

Providence requires immediate presence to all things. As Herman Bavinck writes: “If God were not omnipresent, He could not be the cause of all that occurs in creation. Effects require the presence of their cause. Since God is the primary cause of all creaturely effects, He must be immediately present to all creatures” (Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2).

The Westminster Confession beautifully summarizes this connection: “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” (Chapter 5, Section 1). Such comprehensive providence is impossible without omnipresence.

Necessary for Creation’s Existence

Creation doesn’t merely need God to begin existing—it needs God’s continuous presence to continue existing. This is the doctrine of continuous creation or divine conservation. Things don’t exist independently once created; they depend moment by moment on God’s sustaining presence.

Paul declares this dependence: “For in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28, NKJV). The present tense verbs indicate ongoing dependence. We don’t merely “began” in Him or “were started” by Him—we continuously live, move, and exist in Him. Remove God’s presence, and creation would instantly cease to exist.

This explains why God must be omnipresent. If He were absent from any part of creation, that part would immediately cease to exist. As Jonathan Edwards argued: “God’s preserving created things in being is perfectly equivalent to a continued creation… If the continued existence of created things be wholly dependent on God’s preservation, then those things would drop into nothing upon the ceasing of the present moment’s divine preservation” (Original Sin, Part IV, Chapter 3).

Dake’s God, traveling from place to place in a body, would leave trails of non-existence wherever He departed. Only an omnipresent God can sustain all creation continuously.

Section 4: Answering Common Objections

“How Can God Be in Hell?”

This objection assumes that God’s presence equals God’s blessing, but Scripture distinguishes different modes of divine presence. God is essentially present in hell as the sustainer of existence and executor of justice, but He is not there in blessing or fellowship.

The Psalmist explicitly states: “If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there” (Psalm 139:8, NKJV). The word “Sheol” refers to the realm of the dead, the place of departed spirits. God’s presence there doesn’t sanctify it or make it pleasant—it ensures justice is executed and even that realm remains under His sovereignty.

Amos warns the wicked: “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). God’s hand reaches even into Sheol—not in mercy but in judgment. His presence in hell manifests as wrath, not grace.

Revelation describes the fate of the wicked: “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” (enopion) the Lamb. This isn’t the presence of blessing but the presence of judgment.

As Westminster divine Thomas Watson explained: “God is in hell by His vindicative justice. He is in heaven by His glory; He is in His church by His grace; He is in hell by His justice. The wicked shall not be able to flee from God. He will be eternally tormenting them by His presence” (A Body of Divinity).

“Doesn’t Sin Separate Us from God?”

Scripture speaks of separation from God due to sin, but this refers to relational separation, not ontological absence. Isaiah declares: “Your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you” (Isaiah 59:2, NKJV).

Note carefully: sins “hide His face”—a Hebrew idiom for broken fellowship, not physical absence. The sinner doesn’t escape God’s presence but loses the blessing of His favorable presence. Like a child who turns away from a parent in rebellion, the parent hasn’t disappeared—the relationship is broken.

Consider Cain’s complaint after murdering Abel: “I shall be hidden from Your face” (Genesis 4:14, NKJV). Yet God immediately demonstrates His continued presence by placing a mark of protection on Cain. God was still present, still sovereign, still aware—but the sweet fellowship was broken.

David, after his sin with Bathsheba, prays: “Do not cast me away from Your presence, And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me” (Psalm 51:11, NKJV). David fears losing God’s favorable presence, the presence of blessing and fellowship. He knows God’s essential presence cannot be escaped—he had written Psalm 139! But he fears losing the gracious presence he had enjoyed.

The prodigal son illustrates this perfectly. When he departed for the far country, did he escape his father’s existence? No—the father continued to exist, to think of his son, to watch for his return. But the son lost the blessing of his father’s fellowship. Similarly, sinners don’t escape God’s existence but forfeit His fellowship.

“How Is God Present Yet Not Contaminated by Evil?”

This objection assumes that presence equals participation or contamination. But Scripture affirms God’s absolute holiness while maintaining His omnipresence. “Your eyes are purer than to behold evil, And cannot look on wickedness” (Habakkuk 1:13, NKJV).

The phrase “cannot look on wickedness” doesn’t mean God is literally unable to see evil (that would deny omniscience). Rather, it means He cannot look upon it with approval or participation. The sun shines on garbage without being contaminated; how much more can the holy God be present with sinners without being defiled?

Consider Christ’s incarnation. Jesus was present with tax collectors and sinners, yet “He knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21, NKJV). He touched lepers without becoming leprous, associated with sinners without sinning. His presence brought purification, not contamination.

As Anselm argued: “God is present to all things by His power, in that all things are subject to His power. But He is not present to all things by grace, for He does not bestow His grace upon all. Yet His presence never defiles Him, for He touches all things yet remains untouched by their impurity” (Proslogion, Chapter 16).

“What About Biblical Language of God ‘Coming Down’ or ‘Visiting’?”

Scripture often uses phenomenological language—describing things as they appear from human perspective. When the Bible speaks of God “coming down” or “visiting,” it refers to special manifestations of His presence, not His arrival from absence.

Genesis records: “But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built” (Genesis 11:5, NKJV). Did God not know about Babel until He traveled there? Of course not. This anthropomorphic language emphasizes God’s special judicial attention to their rebellion.

When God tells Moses, “I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry… So I have come down to deliver them” (Exodus 3:7-8, NKJV), He’s not saying He was absent from Egypt. The enslaved Israelites existed in His presence all along. His “coming down” refers to His special intervention for deliverance.

Calvin explains: “When Scripture speaks of God descending, we must not imagine that He moves from place to place, for He fills heaven and earth. These are rather accommodations to our weakness, by which God indicates that He is about to do something extraordinary which will make His presence especially manifest” (Commentary on Genesis 11:5).

“How Can God Be Personal If He’s Everywhere?”

Some imagine that omnipresence makes God an impersonal force rather than a personal being. But personhood doesn’t require physical limitation. In fact, omnipresence enhances God’s personal relationship with each creature.

A human friend can only be personally present to one person or group at a time. But God can be personally, intimately present to every believer simultaneously. As Spurgeon beautifully expressed: “When you pray, God is not hearing a thousand other prayers at the same time and therefore distracted. He is as much with you as if you were the only being He ever created” (Morning and Evening, January 3).

Scripture consistently presents God’s omnipresence in personal terms. David doesn’t speak of an impersonal force but addresses God as “You”: “You have hedged me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me” (Psalm 139:5, NKJV). The omnipresent God is the personal God who knows, loves, and relates.

“Doesn’t God’s Throne in Heaven Mean He’s Localized?”

Scripture speaks of God’s throne in heaven, but this represents His sovereign rule, not physical limitation. When Isaiah saw the Lord “sitting on a throne, high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1, NKJV), he also heard the seraphim cry: “The whole earth is full of His glory!” (Isaiah 6:3, NKJV). God was simultaneously on the throne and filling the earth.

Solomon understood this paradox when he prayed: “Hear in heaven Your dwelling place” (1 Kings 8:30, NKJV), yet also declared: “Heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You” (1 Kings 8:27, NKJV). God’s throne represents His authority, not His confinement.

Jesus taught that heaven is God’s throne, but earth is His footstool (Matthew 5:34-35), echoing Isaiah 66:1. A footstool is where one’s feet rest—indicating presence, not absence. The imagery presents God as so vast that He uses heaven as a throne and earth as a footstool, not that He’s confined to either location.

“How Can Christ Be at the Right Hand of God Yet Omnipresent?”

This involves the mystery of the incarnation and the two natures of Christ. In His divine nature, Christ remains omnipresent: “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). Even while on earth, Christ claimed to be “in heaven.”

In His human nature, Christ’s body is localized, now glorified and ascended. But even regarding His humanity, being at God’s “right hand” indicates position of authority, not geographic location. Stephen saw Christ “standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56), while John saw Him walking among the lampstands (Revelation 1:13). These aren’t contradictions but different aspects of Christ’s complex reality as the God-man.

The Westminster Larger Catechism clarifies: “Christ makes intercession by His appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven… and by His Spirit in the hearts of all believers” (Question 55). Christ is locally present in heaven in His humanity, omnipresently active by His divinity, and specially present by His Spirit.

Section 5: Practical Benefits of True Omnipresence

Constant Comfort for Believers

The reality of God’s omnipresence provides unshakeable comfort to believers in every circumstance. When David fled from Absalom, he could write: “I will both lie down in peace, and sleep; For You alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety” (Psalm 4:8, NKJV). Though fleeing for his life, David knew God’s presence surrounded him.

Consider the comfort this brings in various trials. The believer in the hospital bed isn’t hoping God will visit—God is already there. The missionary in the remote jungle isn’t beyond God’s reach—God fills that jungle. The martyr facing death doesn’t die alone—God is present in the very flames.

When my child leaves for college, I cannot go with them, but God does. When my loved one enters surgery, I must wait outside, but God accompanies them. When death separates me from family, God remains with both of us. As the hymn writer testified: “When through the deep waters I call thee to go, the rivers of sorrow shall not overflow; for I will be with thee thy troubles to bless, and sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.”

Dake’s limited God offers no such comfort. If God must travel from place to place, He might be absent in our moment of greatest need. But the biblical God declares: “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5, NKJV). Not “I will try to be there” or “I will visit when possible,” but “never leave”—a promise only possible through omnipresence.

Accountability for Holy Living

God’s omnipresence means we live every moment coram Deo—before the face of God. This reality should profoundly impact our holiness. The Proverbs declare: “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3, NKJV).

Joseph understood this when tempted by Potiphar’s wife. His response wasn’t “What if someone sees?” but “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9, NKJV). Joseph knew God was present in that Egyptian bedroom, watching, caring about his choices.

Many Christians live with a practical deism—acknowledging God theoretically but living as if He were absent. They would never view pornography if their pastor were present, yet they forget the omnipresent God sees all. They speak differently when “alone” than in church, forgetting no one is ever alone.

Brother Lawrence, the 17th-century Carmelite monk, discovered the transforming power of practicing God’s presence. He wrote: “We should establish ourselves in a sense of God’s presence by continually conversing with Him. It is a shameful thing to quit His conversation to think of trifles and fooleries” (The Practice of the Presence of God).

This awareness shouldn’t produce paranoid fear but healthy reverence. We’re not being watched by a cosmic policeman eager to punish, but by a loving Father who desires our holiness. As one Puritan wrote: “He who lives in the constant awareness of God’s presence will find sin loses much of its attraction.”

Confidence in Prayer

Omnipresence guarantees that God hears every prayer instantly. We don’t need to worry whether our prayers reach heaven or whether God is too busy elsewhere. The psalmist declares: “O You who hear prayer, To You all flesh will come” (Psalm 65:2, NKJV).

Hannah prayed silently, only her lips moving, yet God heard (1 Samuel 1:13). Nehemiah prayed instantly in the middle of conversation with the king, and God heard (Nehemiah 2:4). Peter sinking in the waves cried out, and Christ immediately responded (Matthew 14:30-31). These instant divine responses are only possible because God is omnipresent.

Consider the implications for corporate prayer. When millions of Christians pray simultaneously around the globe, each prayer receives God’s full attention. He doesn’t divide His attention or prioritize requests. Every prayer from every believer in every language at every moment receives the full attention of the omnipresent God.

Jesus encouraged such confidence: “And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13, NKJV). This promise assumes God’s ability to hear and respond to all prayers—only possible through omnipresence.

Dake’s God, traveling in a body, might miss prayers while in transit. But the biblical God misses nothing. As Charles Spurgeon said: “God is more ready to hear than we are to pray. He is more willing to give than we are to receive. The omnipresent God stands ready at all times to hear the faintest cry of His children.”

Assurance in Trials

The omnipresent God doesn’t merely observe our trials from heaven—He is present in them with us. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed: “Look! I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” (Daniel 3:25, NKJV).

God didn’t send deliverance from afar—He was present in the fire. This prefigures Christ’s promise: “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; And through the rivers, they shall not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned, Nor shall the flame scorch you” (Isaiah 43:2, NKJV).

Paul discovered this in his trials: “At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me… But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me” (2 Timothy 4:16-17, NKJV). When human friends abandoned him, the omnipresent God remained.

This assurance extends to the valley of death itself. David could face death confidently because “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). Death doesn’t separate us from God’s presence—it ushers us more fully into it.

Mission Motivation

Christ’s Great Commission includes the promise: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, NKJV). This promise of omnipresent accompaniment empowers missionary endeavor. We don’t carry God to unreached peoples—He’s already there, preparing the way.

When Paul stood before hostile crowds in Athens, Corinth, and Rome, he knew God was present. When missionaries enter closed countries today, God is already there. When believers share the gospel with neighbors, God is present in the conversation. We are never alone in our witness.

Furthermore, God’s omnipresence means He’s already working in the hearts of those we’re trying to reach. Before Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch, God was already preparing his heart (Acts 8). Before Peter arrived at Cornelius’s house, God had already been working (Acts 10). We don’t bring God to people—we join God in His ongoing work.

This transforms evangelism from human effort to divine partnership. We’re not convincing people about an absent God but introducing them to the God who already surrounds them. As Paul declared to the Athenians: “He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27, NKJV).

Section 6: Worship and Omnipresence

God Receives Global Worship Simultaneously

At any given moment, worship ascends to God from every corner of the earth. Morning prayers rise from Asia while evening hymns sound from Europe. African drums praise Him while South American guitars strum His glory. This simultaneous global worship is only possible because God is omnipresent.

Malachi prophesied this reality: “From the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations” (Malachi 1:11, NKJV).

“In every place” worship would be offered—not just in Jerusalem’s temple but throughout the earth. This prophecy, fulfilled in the church age, assumes God’s omnipresence. How could He receive worship “in every place” if He were confined to a physical body in one location?

Jesus confirmed this to the Samaritan woman: “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father… But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4:21, 23, NKJV).

Worship is no longer tied to location because God isn’t confined to location. Whether in cathedral or catacomb, mansion or mud hut, God is equally present to receive worship. This democratizes worship—no place is inherently more sacred because God’s presence makes every place potentially sacred.

Present in Every Gathering

Christ 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 isn’t a minimum attendance requirement for Christ’s presence—He’s present with the individual believer too. Rather, it’s a promise of special covenantal presence when believers gather.

Consider Sunday morning worldwide. Thousands of congregations gather simultaneously. House churches meet in China while megachurches assemble in America. Underground believers worship in Iran while public celebrations occur in South Korea. Christ is present in each gathering—not partially but fully present to each.

This reality should transform our worship gatherings. We’re not trying to invoke God’s presence through our enthusiasm or sincerity—He’s already present. We’re not informing God about our needs—He already knows. We’re responding to the present God, acknowledging His presence, celebrating His glory.

The early church understood this. They didn’t begin worship by calling God to come but by recognizing He was already there. Their liturgies began with calls to worship that acknowledged God’s presence: “The Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before Him” (Habakkuk 2:20).

Personal and Corporate Implications

Omnipresence means worship isn’t confined to corporate gatherings. Every believer can worship God anywhere, anytime, because God is always present. Paul instructs: “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17, NKJV)—only possible because God always hears.

This transforms daily life into potential worship. Brother Lawrence discovered he could worship while washing dishes as truly as while receiving communion. The mother changing diapers, the farmer plowing fields, the programmer writing code—all can worship the omnipresent God in their work.

Yet corporate worship remains special. When believers gather, there’s a multiplication of worship, a symphony of praise that individuals alone cannot produce. The omnipresent God who hears the lonely believer’s whisper also delights in the congregation’s thunder.

Liturgical Considerations

Understanding omnipresence should influence how we structure worship. Many churches begin services by “invoking” God’s presence or singing songs asking God to “come down.” While God does manifest His presence specially at times, we must be careful not to imply He’s absent until we summon Him.

Better to begin by acknowledging God’s presence: “We gather in the presence of the living God who fills heaven and earth.” This theological precision isn’t pedantic—it shapes congregation’s understanding of God and worship.

The ancient church understood this. The Sursum Corda (“Lift up your hearts”) didn’t summon God downward but lifted worshippers’ awareness upward to the God already present. “We lift them up to the Lord” acknowledged that believers were entering more fully into the presence of the omnipresent God.

Section 7: Living Coram Deo

Before the Face of God

The Latin phrase coram Deo—”before the face of God”—captures the practical implications of omnipresence. Every moment of life is lived before God’s face. This isn’t mere theological theory but practical reality that should shape every aspect of life.

R.C. Sproul explained: “To live coram Deo is to live one’s entire life in the presence of God, under the authority of God, to the glory of God. To live in the presence of God is to understand that whatever we are doing and wherever we are doing it, we are acting under the gaze of God.”

This awareness transforms everything. Work becomes worship when done coram Deo. Recreation becomes gratitude when enjoyed coram Deo. Relationships become ministry when conducted coram Deo. Nothing remains secular when lived before the face of God.

Brother Lawrence’s Practice

Nicholas Herman, known as Brother Lawrence, was a 17th-century lay brother who worked in the kitchen of a Parisian monastery. His little book “The Practice of the Presence of God” has influenced countless Christians in cultivating awareness of God’s omnipresence.

Brother Lawrence wrote: “The time of business does not with me differ from the time of prayer; and in the noise and clatter of my kitchen, while several persons are at the same time calling for different things, I possess God in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees at the blessed sacrament.”

He discovered that awareness of God’s presence wasn’t achieved through special techniques but through simple faith: “We ought to act with God in the greatest simplicity, speaking to Him frankly and plainly, and imploring His assistance in our affairs, just as they happen.”

This wasn’t mysticism seeking special experiences but practical Christianity recognizing revealed truth—God is always present. Brother Lawrence didn’t achieve God’s presence; he acknowledged it. His “practice” was really recognition of reality.

Cultivating Awareness

While God is always present, we’re not always aware of His presence. Sin, distraction, and spiritual dullness can make us practically forgetful of the omnipresent God. How do we cultivate awareness without falling into unhealthy mysticism or legalistic practices?

First, we begin with Scripture’s testimony about God’s presence. We don’t look for feelings or experiences but rest on revealed truth. God says He’s present; therefore, He is, regardless of our feelings. Faith believes God’s word about His presence even when emotions suggest otherwise.

Second, we practice remembrance throughout the day. Simple prayers like “Lord, I acknowledge Your presence” or “Thank You for being here” remind us of reality. These aren’t magical formulas but faith exercises, training our minds to recognize truth.

Third, we interpret all events through the lens of God’s presence. That difficult conversation? God was present. That moment of temptation? God saw. That unexpected blessing? God provided. Nothing happens outside the sphere of God’s presence.

Fourth, we resist compartmentalization. God isn’t present only in “spiritual” activities but in all of life. He’s as present in the boardroom as the prayer room, in the gym as in the sanctuary. Rejecting sacred-secular division helps maintain awareness of omnipresence.

Spiritual Disciplines and Omnipresence

Traditional spiritual disciplines take on new meaning when understood through omnipresence. Prayer isn’t reaching out to a distant God but communing with the present God. Scripture reading isn’t studying about an absent God but hearing from the present God.

Solitude doesn’t mean being alone—that’s impossible given omnipresence. Rather, it means being alone with God without human distraction. Fasting reminds us that we depend on the omnipresent God more than physical food. Service demonstrates love for the God who is present in “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40).

Even corporate disciplines center on omnipresence. We gather for worship not to make God present but to celebrate His presence together. We share testimonies of how the omnipresent God has worked in our scattered lives. We partake of communion in the presence of the Christ who promised to be with us always.

Section 8: Protecting This Doctrine for Future Generations

Teaching Children Properly

How we teach children about God’s omnipresence shapes their entire theological framework. Many children’s Sunday school lessons inadvertently promote Dake’s errors by depicting God as a grandfatherly figure sitting on a throne in heaven, watching earth through celestial television.

Instead, we must teach children that God is spirit, not confined to a body. Use appropriate analogies while acknowledging their limitations. The air we breathe is everywhere but isn’t God. The sun’s light reaches everywhere it shines, but God needs no medium. These analogies help while maintaining distinction.

Teach children early that God is always with them—not as an invisible friend who might leave, but as the eternal God who promises never to forsake them. When they’re scared at night, remind them God is present in the darkness. When they face challenges at school, assure them God is there.

But also teach the sobering side of omnipresence—God sees everything, including sin. This shouldn’t produce paranoid fear but healthy reverence. Children who grow up truly believing God is always present develop stronger moral foundations than those who think they can hide from God.

Preaching Omnipresence

Pastors bear special responsibility for maintaining orthodox teaching on omnipresence. Too many sermons speak of God in deistic terms, as though He occasionally intervenes from heaven rather than being immediately present. This practical deism weakens faith and opens doors to errors like Dake’s.

Sermons should regularly remind congregations of God’s presence. Not every sermon needs to be about omnipresence, but every sermon should assume and reflect it. When preaching on prayer, emphasize that God hears because He’s present. When preaching on sin, remind that God sees because He’s present. When preaching on comfort, assure that God helps because He’s present.

Use precise language. Avoid saying “God came down” when Scripture doesn’t use that language. Don’t imply God must travel to help us. Don’t suggest God is more present in church buildings than homes. These subtle linguistic choices shape congregational theology over time.

Address common misconceptions directly. Many believers functionally believe Dake’s theology without knowing it. They imagine God watching from heaven rather than being immediately present. Regular teaching correcting these errors protects the flock from doctrinal drift.

Correcting Errors Graciously

When encountering those who hold Dake’s views or similar errors, we must correct with grace and patience. Many who believe God has a body aren’t heretics but confused Christians who’ve never been properly taught. Harsh condemnation often drives them deeper into error rather than bringing correction.

Begin by affirming what they get right—God is personal, not an impersonal force. God does care about and interact with creation. These truths can serve as bridges to correct understanding. Show how orthodox omnipresence actually better preserves these truths than Dake’s limitations.

Use Scripture primarily, philosophy secondarily. While philosophical arguments about infinity and incorporeality have their place, most believers are more persuaded by clear biblical teaching. Let passages like Psalm 139, Jeremiah 23:23-24, and Acts 17:27-28 do the heavy lifting.

Address the pastoral concerns behind their errors. Often people cling to an anthropomorphic God because they fear losing personal relationship with an abstract deity. Show them that the omnipresent God is more personal, more intimate, more available than a God who must travel in a body.

Maintaining Orthodox Confession

Churches and denominations must maintain clear confessional standards on God’s attributes, including omnipresence. Many modern statements of faith are so minimal they leave room for errors like Dake’s. Robust confessions protect future generations from doctrinal drift.

Church membership and leadership should require affirmation of orthodox omnipresence. This isn’t theological nitpicking—it’s protecting the fundamental nature of God. Those who teach must be held to higher standards, as James warns (James 3:1).

Seminary education must emphasize classical theism, including omnipresence. Too many pastors graduate with shallow understanding of God’s attributes, leaving them vulnerable to errors and unable to protect their flocks. Systematic theology courses should thoroughly ground students in orthodox doctrine.

Publishing houses and curriculum publishers bear responsibility too. Materials that depict God with a body or suggest He travels from place to place should be corrected or rejected. Especially in children’s materials, we must be careful not to plant seeds of error that will grow into theological weeds.

Section 9: The Wonder of Divine Omnipresence

Mystery Without Contradiction

Omnipresence remains mysterious even when properly understood. We can affirm what Scripture teaches without fully comprehending how an infinite God relates to finite space. This mystery humbles us while the revealed truth anchors us.

Scripture acknowledges this mystery. Paul exclaims: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:33, NKJV). Omnipresence is part of God’s unsearchable nature—we understand truly but not exhaustively.

Yet mystery differs from contradiction. Dake’s view isn’t mysterious but contradictory—claiming God is omnipresent while having a localized body. Biblical omnipresence is mysterious—we can’t fully explain how God is wholly present everywhere—but not contradictory. God reveals enough for faith and worship while maintaining enough mystery for wonder.

This balance protects us from two errors: rationalism that demands complete understanding and irrationalism that glories in contradiction. We know God is omnipresent because He reveals it; we don’t know exhaustively how because He hasn’t revealed that. We walk between presumption and skepticism, holding revealed truth humbly.

The Greater God

The orthodox doctrine of omnipresence reveals a God infinitely greater than Dake’s limited deity. Dake’s God, confined to a body, traveling from place to place, is essentially a superhuman—greater than us in degree but not in kind. The biblical God transcends such categories entirely.

Consider the vast superiority of the omnipresent God. He doesn’t need to travel because He’s already everywhere. He doesn’t miss events because He’s always present. He doesn’t strain to manage the universe because He’s immediately present to every atom. This God inspires true worship, not the limited deity of Dake’s imagination.

As A.W. Tozer wrote: “The God of the modern evangelical rarely astonishes anybody. He manages to stay pretty much within the constitution. Never breaks our bylaws. He’s a very well-behaved God and very denominational and very much like one of us…we’ve reduced Him to manageable terms. But the God of the Bible is still the High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity.”

Doxological Response

True understanding of omnipresence leads inevitably to worship. How can we not praise the God who fills heaven and earth yet condescends to dwell with the contrite? How can we not marvel at the God who upholds galaxies while numbering our hairs?

David’s response to contemplating God’s omnipresence was worship: “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it” (Psalm 139:6, NKJV). Later he concludes: “How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand” (Psalm 139:17-18, NKJV).

The proper response to omnipresence isn’t cold theological analysis but warm devotional worship. Yes, we must think accurately about God—hence this lengthy treatment correcting Dake’s errors. But accurate thinking should inflame our hearts, not merely inform our minds.

Section 10: Omnipresence in Biblical History

Creation and Omnipresence

From the very beginning, Scripture assumes God’s omnipresence. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2, NKJV).

The Spirit “hovering” (rachaph) over the waters suggests protective, nurturing presence—like an eagle over its young (Deuteronomy 32:11). God wasn’t creating from a distance but was intimately present to His creation. Each creative word—”Let there be”—was spoken into the space where it would take effect, for God was already there.

The creation account refutes both deism (God creating then withdrawing) and Dake’s limitation (God having to travel to create different things). God simultaneously spoke light into being throughout the universe, separated waters above and below across the earth, and filled the seas with creatures in every ocean. Only omnipresence makes this possible.

The Patriarchs Experience Omnipresence

Abraham discovered God’s omnipresence throughout his journeys. Whether in Ur, Haran, Canaan, or Egypt, God was present. When he titled an altar “Jehovah Jireh” (the Lord will provide), he recognized God’s presence even in seemingly desolate places (Genesis 22:14).

Jacob’s experience at Bethel dramatically illustrates omnipresence. After deceiving his father and fleeing Esau’s wrath, Jacob assumed he had left God’s presence behind. But his dream revealed reality: “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it” (Genesis 28:16, NKJV). God hadn’t followed Jacob to Bethel—He was already there.

Joseph understood omnipresence in Egyptian slavery. Sold by his brothers, imprisoned unjustly, forgotten by those he helped—yet “The Lord was with Joseph” (Genesis 39:2, NKJV). Not “the Lord visited Joseph” or “the Lord remembered Joseph,” but “was with”—continuous presence even in the Egyptian prison.

The Exodus and Wilderness

The exodus powerfully demonstrates omnipresence. While manifesting special presence in the pillar of cloud and fire, God was simultaneously present in Egypt bringing plagues, at the Red Sea preparing deliverance, and in the Promised Land preparing for Israel’s arrival.

Consider the Passover night. God declares: “For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night” (Exodus 12:12, NKJV). Did God travel from house to house? No—He was simultaneously present at every door, seeing the blood, passing over or striking down. Only omnipresence explains the simultaneity of that night’s events.

In the wilderness, God’s special presence in the tabernacle didn’t negate His omnipresence. While the glory cloud rested on the tabernacle, God was also present with the scouts in Canaan, with enemies plotting against Israel, and with other nations He was judging. The tabernacle localized God’s special covenant presence, not His essential presence.

The Monarchy Period

David, the man after God’s heart, understood omnipresence perhaps better than any Old Testament figure. His psalms repeatedly celebrate God’s inescapable presence. Even in his darkest moment—fleeing from Absalom—David knew God’s presence accompanied him.

Solomon, despite his wisdom, seemed to struggle with omnipresence. At the temple’s dedication, he rightly asks: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth?” (1 Kings 8:27, NKJV). Yet later, his many wives turned his heart after other gods, as if the God of Israel couldn’t see his private idolatry.

Elijah learned about God’s omnipresence at Mount Horeb. Fleeing Jezebel, feeling alone, he discovered God wasn’t only in the dramatic (wind, earthquake, fire) but in the still small voice. God was present in the cave, on the mountain, back in Israel—everywhere Elijah thought to flee.

The Prophets Proclaim Omnipresence

The prophets consistently proclaimed God’s omnipresence, especially when Israel imagined they could hide their sins. Isaiah declared God’s presence fills the earth (Isaiah 6:3). Jeremiah proclaimed no one can hide from God (Jeremiah 23:24). Ezekiel saw God’s glory in Babylon, far from the temple (Ezekiel 1).

Jonah provides the most dramatic prophetic lesson in omnipresence. Attempting to flee to Tarshish from God’s presence, he discovered God’s presence in the storm, in the fish’s belly, in Nineveh. His prayer from the fish acknowledges: “I went down to the moorings of the mountains; The earth with its bars closed behind me forever; Yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord, my God” (Jonah 2:6, NKJV).

Even in the depths of the sea, in the belly of the great fish, God was present. Jonah couldn’t flee God’s presence—he could only flee from obedience. This distinction matters: we can rebel against the omnipresent God, but we cannot escape Him.

Section 11: The New Testament Revelation of Omnipresence

The Incarnation and Omnipresence

The incarnation presents the ultimate expression of God’s presence while maintaining omnipresence. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14, NKJV)—literally “tabernacled” among us. Yet this localized presence in human flesh didn’t diminish divine omnipresence.

Jesus demonstrated this paradox repeatedly. While physically present in one location, He displayed knowledge and power indicating omnipresence. He knew Nathanael under the fig tree before meeting him (John 1:48). He saw Lazarus die while miles away (John 11:14). He knew Peter would find a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matthew 17:27).

Most remarkably, Jesus claimed: “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). While speaking to Nicodemus on earth, Jesus claimed to be simultaneously “in heaven.” This is impossible for Dake’s God with a physical body but perfectly consistent with divine omnipresence.

The Holy Spirit’s Omnipresence

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit’s omnipresence was dramatically revealed. The Spirit came upon all 120 disciples simultaneously, then enabled them to speak in languages understood by Jews “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). This wasn’t the Spirit moving from person to person but being present to all simultaneously.

Jesus promised this omnipresent Spirit: “I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-17, NKJV).

The Spirit would be “with” and “in” all believers simultaneously—only possible through omnipresence. Every Christian has the full Holy Spirit, not a portion. The Spirit isn’t divided among believers but wholly present to each, convicting, comforting, teaching, and empowering all believers everywhere simultaneously.

The Church and Christ’s Omnipresence

The church exists because of Christ’s omnipresence. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20, NKJV). Thousands of gatherings occur simultaneously worldwide, and Christ is present in each—not partially but fully present.

Paul describes the church as Christ’s body, “the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:23, NKJV). Christ fills all things, and the church manifests that fullness. We don’t bring Christ to the world—we manifest the Christ who already fills all things.

This transforms our understanding of mission. We’re not carrying God to godless places—God is already there, preparing hearts, working providentially. We join God in His ongoing work rather than initiating divine presence. As Paul discovered at Corinth: “I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:10, NKJV)—before Paul preached, God was already present, working, calling.

Section 12: Theological Implications of Rejecting Omnipresence

The Cascade of Error

Denying or distorting omnipresence doesn’t affect just one doctrine—it triggers a cascade of theological errors. Like removing a foundation stone, the entire structure becomes unstable. Dake’s error about omnipresence necessarily corrupts his understanding of God’s other attributes and actions.

If God has a physical body that must travel, His omniscience is impossible. How can He know all things if He’s not present to observe them? Dake tries to maintain omniscience while denying true omnipresence, but this creates an incoherent system. A God who must travel to see cannot know all things simultaneously.

Similarly, omnipotence becomes problematic. How can God be all-powerful if He can only act where His body is located? Can He create a star in a distant galaxy while sitting on heaven’s throne? Can He simultaneously answer prayers from opposite sides of earth? Dake’s system requires either denying omnipotence or positing action at a distance—but the latter requires a form of presence.

Providence Becomes Impossible

Biblical providence requires God’s immediate presence to all creation. The Westminster Confession states God “upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least.” This comprehensive providence is impossible for a God who must travel between locations.

Consider what providence entails. Every sparrow’s fall is noticed (Matthew 10:29). Every hair is numbered (Matthew 10:30). Every atom is held together (Colossians 1:17). The heart of kings is directed (Proverbs 21:1). The lot cast is controlled (Proverbs 16:33). How could a God with a localized body accomplish this comprehensive providence?

Dake’s God would need to be constantly traveling at infinite speed to maintain providence—but then He wouldn’t be truly localized. Or He would need to act remotely—but remote action implies a form of presence. The only coherent solution is biblical omnipresence: God is immediately present to all things, thus able to govern all things.

Prayer Becomes Uncertain

If God must travel in a physical body, prayer becomes deeply problematic. Is God listening to my prayer right now, or is He elsewhere? When millions pray simultaneously, how does a localized God hear them all? Does He record prayers for later review? These absurdities follow from denying omnipresence.

Scripture presents prayer as immediate communication with the ever-present God. Hannah prayed silently, and God heard immediately (1 Samuel 1). Nehemiah prayed instantly while conversing with the king (Nehemiah 2:4). Peter’s sinking cry brought immediate response (Matthew 14:30-31). These instant divine responses require omnipresence.

Jesus encouraged confidence in prayer based on God’s omnipresence: “Your Father knows what you need before you ask Him” (Matthew 6:8, NKJV). How could God know our needs before we ask if He’s not present to observe them? Dake’s theology undermines prayer’s foundation.

Worship Loses Meaning

Worship assumes God’s presence to receive it. If God must travel to hear worship, much worship would go unheard. The global church’s praise would become a cacophony of missed messages rather than a symphony of glory. Worship becomes uncertain, wondering if God is present to receive it.

Furthermore, if God has a body as Dake claims, what does it mean to worship “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24)? Are we worshipping a glorified body? This reduces worship to honoring a superhuman rather than the transcendent God. True worship requires a truly transcendent God—one not limited by physical form or location.

The Gospel Itself Is Undermined

Most seriously, Dake’s errors about omnipresence ultimately undermine the gospel itself. If God the Father has a physical body localized in heaven, how did He forsake the Son on the cross? Was He absent? Did He turn His physical back? The profound mystery of the cross becomes an absurd physical drama.

Moreover, how does a physically limited Christ mediate for millions of believers simultaneously? How does He prepare places for all believers (John 14:2-3)? How does He intercede for all saints (Romans 8:34)? These ministries require omnipresence, not a localized body traveling between petitioners.

Salvation itself depends on God’s omnipresence. The Spirit must convict the world of sin (John 16:8)—all the world, simultaneously. Christ must draw all people to Himself (John 12:32). The gospel must be the power of God for everyone believing (Romans 1:16). These universal actions require an omnipresent God.

Section 13: Dake’s Specific Errors Examined

The “Omnipresence but Not Omnibody” Confusion

Dake writes: “Omnipresent (not omnibody, 1 Ki. 8:27; Ps. 139:7-12). Presence is not governed by bodily contact, but by knowledge and relationship (Mt. 18:20; 28:20; cp. 1 Cor. 5:3-4). God’s body is not omnipresent, for it is only at one place at one time like others (Gen. 3:8; 11:5; 18:1-8, 33; 19:24; 32:24-32), but His presence can be realized any place where men know Him and seek Him (Mt. 18:20).”¹ This statement reveals fundamental confusion about the nature of presence and spirit.

First, Dake creates a false dichotomy between presence and body, as if God’s presence were separate from His being. But God doesn’t have presence as an attribute separate from Himself—He is present by virtue of His being. To say God is present but His “body” is not present is incoherent.

Second, Dake reduces presence to being “felt” by intelligent beings. This makes God’s presence dependent on creatures’ perception. But God was omnipresent before creating any intelligent beings to “feel” His presence. His presence is objective reality, not subjective experience.

Third, by insisting God has a body that cannot be everywhere, Dake has already denied omnipresence. A being with a localized body cannot be omnipresent by definition. Dake tries to have it both ways—affirming omnipresence verbally while denying it conceptually.

Dake further elaborates his error: “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.”² Here Dake explicitly teaches that all three persons of the Trinity travel bodily from location to location, fundamentally contradicting biblical omnipresence.

Dake provides even more extensive explanation of his false doctrine in “God’s Plan for Man,” where he writes: “God is not a universal nothingness floating around in nowhere. He is not impersonal, immaterial, intangible—an unreal person. He is not a universal mind, soul, spirit, conscience, goodness, principle—an abstract power or force filling the whole of space and solid matter, as false cults teach. He is not omni-body; that is, His body is not everywhere at all places at the same time. It is just as visible, tangible, and material as the bodies of all other spirit beings.”¹⁸ This reveals Dake’s thorough materialistic conception of God.

The Wife and Children Analogy

Dake attempts to explain his view with an analogy: “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).”³

This analogy fails catastrophically. When my children see my provisions while I’m absent, I am not present—my effects are evident, but I am absent. They might remember me, see evidence of my care, and feel emotional connection, but I am not ontologically present. Dake confuses evidence of past presence with actual presence.

Furthermore, this reduces God’s omnipresence to mere influence or memory. The biblical God doesn’t leave evidence of past visits—He is actually, immediately, continuously present. David didn’t say “I see evidence of where You’ve been” but rather “You are there” (Psalm 139:8).

Dake extends this flawed analogy further: “While I write I feel the presence of my wife and children who are hundreds of miles away at this time. They are in my thoughts, my plans, my life, and all that I do. I do nothing without them, yet they are far away. I am building a home for them to move into. I plan for them. I see them in the new home. I experience the thrill of having them with me. They are here in spirit and presence, planning with me, and we are working together to the same end in life. This presence is constant, though distance separates bodily at times.”¹⁹ This completely confuses psychological connection with actual ontological presence.

God “Going from Place to Place”

Repeatedly, Dake describes God as traveling: “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.”⁴ This statement directly contradicts Scripture’s teaching about God’s immutability and omnipresence.

If God goes from place to place, He changes location—violating immutability. He leaves one place to arrive at another—denying omnipresence. He takes time to travel—introducing temporal limitation. He can miss events during transit—destroying omniscience. Every divine attribute crumbles under this error.

Scripture never presents God as traveling in the sense Dake describes. When the Bible speaks of God “coming down” or “visiting,” it uses anthropomorphic language to describe special manifestations of His presence, not literal travel from absence to presence.

Dake elaborates this error even more explicitly: “God has a body and goes from place to place like anybody else.”²⁰ This shocking statement reduces the infinite God to a finite creature bound by the same spatial limitations as humans.

He continues: “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.”²¹

Heaven as a “Material Planet”

Dake’s materialism extends to heaven itself: “Heaven itself is a material planet (Gen. 1:1; Heb. 11:10-16), having cities, mansions, furniture, inhabitants, living conditions, etc.”⁵ By making heaven material and God bodily, Dake has reduced the infinite to the finite, the transcendent to the immanent.

If heaven is a material planet and God has a material body dwelling there, then God is a material being subject to material limitations. He would need space to occupy, time to move, energy to act. The Creator becomes part of creation, subject to created limitations.

Scripture presents heaven not as a planet but as God’s realm—sometimes referring to created spiritual realm, sometimes to God’s own transcendent presence. When Paul was caught up to the “third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2), he couldn’t even tell if he was in or out of the body. This isn’t the material planet Dake imagines.

Dake provides extensive detail about his material heaven: “Heaven is a created planet like earth” with physical features including “real cities,” “Mansions,” “Temples,” “Foundations,” “Food,” and even “Chariots.”⁶ This thoroughly materialistic conception of heaven necessitates a physical, localized God who dwells there like any other resident.

Dake writes even more explicitly: “Heaven is a real place, a real country, a real planet, and a material land just like the Earth.”²² He further elaborates that heaven contains “cities (Rev. 21), mansions (John 14:1-3), trees (Rev. 22:1-3), rivers (Rev. 22:1-3), fountains of water (Rev. 7:17), food (Ex. 16:4; Ps. 78:25; 105:40; John 6:31-51; Luke 22:16, 18, 30; Rev. 2:7, 17; 19:1-10; 22:1-3), animals (2 Kings 2:11-12; 6:13-17; Zech. 1:8-11; 6:1-8; Rev. 19:11-14, 21; Rom. 1:20), furniture (Isa. 6:1; Dan. 7:9; Heb. 8:5; 9:23; Rev. 4:2, 4; 6:17)”²³ and numerous other material things.

God Wearing Clothes and Eating

Dake goes so far as to claim God literally eats food. He writes: “God and angels eat even in heaven, so why not on earth? (Ps. 78:25; Lk. 22:16, 18,30; 24:30, 43; Acts 10:41; Heb. 13:2; Ex. 24:11).”⁷ He adds that in his list of “50 Facts About the Planet Heaven,” food is listed as item 26.⁸

Does God need protection from elements, requiring clothes? Does He need nutrition, requiring food? These activities serve bodily needs that the incorporeal God doesn’t have. While Scripture uses anthropomorphic language, it never suggests God has actual physical needs met by material means.

When Scripture speaks of God “clothing” Himself with light (Psalm 104:2), this is metaphorical language for His glory, not a description of divine fashion. When it mentions the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9), this is symbolic of fellowship, not literal digestive necessity.

Dake states even more directly: “He wears clothes (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19); eats (Gen. 18:1-22; Exodus 24:11)”²⁴ as though these were literal physical activities God performs to meet bodily needs.

God’s Physical Body Like Man’s

Dake insists on God’s physical form: “God’s body is like that of a man, for man was created in His likeness and His image bodily (Gen. 1:26, notes; also note r, Jn. 4:24). Here He is described as being like a man from His loins downward (v 26-27; 8:2).”⁹ He further states: “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.”¹⁰

Dake even rejects the biblical truth that God is invisible spirit: “No man, therefore, can say with Scriptural authority, that God consists of a kind of invisible substance which cannot be seen or touched by man. In fact, God will live among men in visible form for ever (Rev. 21:3-7; 22:4-5).”¹¹ This directly contradicts John 4:24 (“God is Spirit”) and numerous passages affirming God’s incorporeal nature.

Dake provides an extensive list of God’s supposed bodily parts: “He has back parts; so must have front parts (Exodus 33:23). He has a heart (Gen. 6:6; 8:21); hands and fingers (Exodus 31:18; Ps. 8:3-6; Rev. 5:1, 6-7); nostrils (Ps. 18:8, 15); mouth (Num. 12:8); lips and tongue (Isa. 30:27); feet (Ezek. 1:27; Exodus 24:10); eyes, eyelids, sight (Ps. 11:4; 18:24; 33:18); voice (Ps. 29; Rev. 10:3-4; Gen. 1); breath (Gen. 2:7); ears (Ps. 18:6); countenance (Ps. 11:7); hair, head, face, arms (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19; Rev. 5:1, 6-7; 22:4-6); loins (Ezek. 1:26-28; 8:1-4); bodily presence (Gen. 3:8; 18:1-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Ex. 24:10-11); and many other bodily parts as is required of Him to be a person with a body.”²⁵

Dake elaborates on his view that man’s creation in God’s image refers to bodily form: “Moses declared that man rvas made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6). The Hebrew word for image is tselem, meaning shape, shadow, resemblance, figure, bodily form… The Hebrew word for likeness is demooth, meaning model, shape, fashion, similitude, and bodily resemblance… There is no question about man being made in the moral and spiritual likeness of God, but none of the above passages refer to this idea. They refer to bodily form and shape. If man was made in the image and likeness of God bodily, then God must have a body, and an outward form and shape.”²⁶

God’s Limited Omniscience

Dake’s errors cascade into denying full omniscience: “Omniscient (all-knowing) as far as His nature, plan, and work are concerned (Rom. 11:33). As to free moral agents, God learns certain things about them (Gen. 6:5-7; 11:5-7; 18:21; 22:12; 2 Chr. 16:9; Job 12:22; 24:23; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6; Pr. 24:12; Jer. 17:10; Ez. 11:5; Zech. 4:10; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Rom. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4). God sends messengers on innumerable duties to help Him carry on His rulership of all things.”¹² By denying full omniscience, Dake creates a God who must discover information, reinforcing the need for His physical presence at locations to observe events.

He further explains: “God gets to know things concerning the free moral actions of men as others do (Gen. 6:5-7; 11:5-7; 18:21; 22:12; 2 Chron. 16:9; Zech. 4:10; Job 12:22; 24:23; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; Ps. 139:1-6; Prov. 24:12; Jer. 17:10; Ezek. 11:5; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4). God sends messengers throughout the Earth who report to Him of all that they find in the Earth that goes on.”²⁷ This portrays God as dependent on angelic scouts for information about earthly events.

Rejecting God as Spirit

Dake attempts to reinterpret John 4:24, the classic text affirming God is Spirit. He writes: “When Jesus said, ‘a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as .ye see me have’ (Luke 24:39), He certainly did not want to leave the impression that spirit bodies were not real and tangible. He simply taught that spirit bodies were not composed of earthly flesh and bone. He could not have meant that God does not have a real spirit body, for He taught elsewhere that God had a voice and a shape (John 5:37).”²⁸

Dake further states: “The vague way men think and speak of God as being a universal Spirit that fills all space and all solid matter, and that He is impersonal, intangible, unreal, and without a body, soul, and spirit, with parts, passions, feelings, appetites, desires, will, mind, or intellect, is the height of ignorance. God wants us to know that He is a person; that He is real; that He has a body, soul, and spirit; and that He has literal faculties to hear, see, speak, will and do anything any other person can do.”²⁹

Section 14: Historical Heresies Related to Omnipresence

Ancient Heresies

Dake’s errors aren’t new but echo ancient heresies the church has repeatedly rejected. The anthropomorphites of the 4th century similarly argued that God must have a body because Scripture speaks of His hands, eyes, and feet. The church roundly condemned this literal reading that ignored the nature of biblical accommodation.

The Stoics believed in a material god pervading the universe as a refined form of matter. While affirming a kind of omnipresence, they denied divine transcendence by making god material. The church rejected this, maintaining that God is spirit, not refined matter.

Certain Gnostic sects proposed a supreme god who remained distant while lesser emanations interacted with creation. This solved the problem of divine interaction with material world but at the cost of true omnipresence. The church insisted the one true God is immediately present to all creation.

Medieval Errors

During the medieval period, some scholastics struggled with how God could be present in hell or in sinful situations without being contaminated. Some proposed that God was present by power but not by essence in evil places. The church maintained that God is essentially present everywhere, though His presence manifests differently in different places.

The problem of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist led to various errors. Some argued Christ’s body became omnipresent at the ascension. Others proposed a multi-location view where Christ’s body could be in multiple places simultaneously. The Reformed tradition maintained that Christ’s human body remains localized while His divine nature remains omnipresent.

Modern Departures

Process theology denies classical omnipresence by making God dependent on temporal processes. God becomes present to events only as they unfold, learning and adapting. This denies both omnipresence and omniscience, making God a fellow traveler rather than sovereign Lord.

Open theism similarly compromises omnipresence by suggesting God doesn’t know future free actions. If God doesn’t know the future exhaustively, He cannot be present to future events in any meaningful sense. This makes God’s presence reactive rather than eternal.

Mormon theology explicitly embraces the kind of embodied deity Dake promotes. Their god has a physical body and is localized, though they multiply deities to cover more ground. This polytheistic solution shows where Dake’s logic ultimately leads—if one bodily god is insufficient, add more.

Section 15: The Pastoral Importance of Orthodox Omnipresence

Comfort in Suffering

When believers suffer, the truth of God’s omnipresence provides incomparable comfort. The cancer patient enduring chemotherapy isn’t hoping God will visit but knows God is present in the very room. The persecuted believer in prison isn’t abandoned—God fills that cell. The grieving widow isn’t alone—the omnipresent God is her immediate companion.

Consider how different pastoral care becomes with Dake’s theology. “God knows about your suffering from heaven” offers far less comfort than “God is with you in your suffering.” “God sees your pain” is less powerful than “God is present in your pain.” The omnipresent God doesn’t observe suffering from afar—He’s present in it.

Paul could therefore write from prison: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13, NKJV). Not “Christ who strengthens me from heaven” but Christ who is present to strengthen. This immediate divine presence transforms suffering from isolation to fellowship with Christ.

Power Over Temptation

Omnipresence provides power for holy living. Joseph resisted Potiphar’s wife not because God was watching from heaven but because God was present in that room. Every temptation occurs in God’s presence, and recognizing this presence empowers resistance.

Paul promises: “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape” (1 Corinthians 10:13, NKJV). How could God provide escape from every temptation if He weren’t present in every temptation?

The believer struggling with pornography needs to know God is present at the computer. The businessman facing ethical compromise needs to know God is in the boardroom. The teenager pressured to conform needs to know God is at the party. Omnipresence makes holiness possible by making God’s presence practical.

Assurance of Salvation

Salvation itself depends on God’s omnipresence. The Spirit convicts of sin—requiring presence to the sinner. The Father draws to Christ—requiring presence to act. The Son saves to the uttermost—requiring presence to accomplish.

Romans 8 builds assurance on omnipresence: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?… 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” (Romans 8:35, 38-39, NKJV).

Nothing can separate us because the omnipresent God is everywhere we might go. Death doesn’t separate because God is present beyond death. Distance doesn’t separate because God fills all distance. Dake’s localized God couldn’t make such promises.

Ministry Effectiveness

Christian ministry depends on God’s omnipresence. When we share the gospel, we’re not introducing an absent God but revealing the God who is already present. When we pray for healing, we’re asking the present God to act. When we worship corporately, we’re acknowledging the God who fills our gathering.

This transforms ministry from human effort to divine cooperation. We don’t bring God to situations—He’s already there. We don’t invoke His presence—we recognize it. We don’t earn His attention—we already have it. Ministry becomes joining God in His ongoing work rather than initiating divine involvement.

Section 16: Responding to Dake’s Influence

Understanding Dake’s Appeal

Why do Dake’s errors attract followers? Understanding the appeal helps us address the root issues, not just symptoms. Many find comfort in a God who seems more relatable—with a body like ours, who travels like us, who exists in space like us. The transcendent, omnipresent God can seem abstract and impersonal by comparison.

Dake offers simple answers to complex questions. How is God present everywhere? He’s not—He just influences everywhere. How can God be in heaven yet hear prayers? His presence extends beyond His body. These simplistic solutions appeal to those who struggle with mystery and paradox.

Furthermore, Dake’s hyperemphasis on the literal interpretation of Scripture appeals to those who fear liberalism’s allegorizing tendencies. In reaction against those who explain away Scripture’s plain meaning, some overcorrect by refusing to recognize obvious anthropomorphisms and accommodations.

Addressing Root Concerns

Those attracted to Dake’s teaching often have legitimate concerns that need addressing. They want a personal God, not an abstract force. Orthodox omnipresence actually provides a more personal God—one who is intimately present to each person simultaneously rather than having to travel between them.

They want a God who understands human experience. The incarnation provides this without compromising divine attributes. Jesus experienced humanity fully while maintaining divine omnipresence. We have a high priest who sympathizes with our weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15) without being limited by them.

They want certainty in interpretation. While we should take Scripture seriously and literally where appropriate, we must also recognize Scripture’s own indicators of figurative language. When God says He has wings (Psalm 91:4), consistency would require Dake to add feathers to his embodied God. Recognizing accommodation isn’t liberalism—it’s good hermeneutics.

Providing Better Alternatives

Rather than merely refuting Dake’s errors, we must provide better alternatives that address the underlying desires. Instead of an embodied God who must travel, present the omnipresent God who is always immediately available. Instead of a God whose presence depends on relationship, present the God whose favorable presence is enhanced by relationship while His essential presence remains constant.

Teach the mystery of God’s transcendence and immanence without collapsing into contradiction. Help believers embrace mystery where Scripture leaves it while holding firmly to what Scripture clearly reveals. Show how orthodox doctrine actually better serves pastoral needs than Dake’s innovations.

The Path Forward

The church must actively teach orthodox omnipresence, not assume it. Many sitting in evangelical churches unconsciously hold views closer to Dake than to biblical orthodoxy. Regular, clear teaching on God’s attributes inoculates against such errors.

Seminaries must ensure pastors graduate with robust understanding of classical theism. Too many emerge with shallow theological training, unable to recognize or refute errors like Dake’s. Systematic theology must be thoroughly grounded in Scripture while informed by historical theology.

Christian publishers and content creators bear responsibility for promoting orthodox teaching. Books, curricula, and media that depict God as bodily or localized should be corrected or rejected. Especially in children’s materials, we must be careful not to plant seeds of error that will grow into theological weeds.

Conclusion: The God Who Fills All in All

We return to where we began—the urgent need to recover biblical omnipresence from the debris of error. Dake’s teaching hasn’t merely adjusted our understanding of one divine attribute; it has presented an entirely different god—a superhuman rather than the supernatural God, a cosmic administrator rather than the transcendent Creator, a heavenly resident rather than the One who fills heaven and earth.

The stakes could not be higher. If we accept Dake’s limited deity, we lose the God of the Bible. We exchange the One in whom “we live and move and have our being” for a distant observer who must travel to help us. We trade the God who fills all in all for one who occupies a throne and commutes to work. We surrender the comfort of constant divine presence for the uncertainty of possible divine visits.

But when we hold fast to biblical omnipresence, we retain the God who inspired awe in the prophets, comfort in the apostles, and worship through the ages. This is the God who can promise never to leave nor forsake us because He cannot leave—He fills all things. This is the God who hears every prayer instantly because He’s present to every pray-er. This is the God who sustains every atom while ruling every galaxy, who numbers hairs while directing history, who dwells in highest heaven while inhabiting the contrite heart.

The path forward is clear: we must return to the biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine of divine omnipresence. Not as an abstract theological concept but as practical reality that shapes worship, empowers holiness, and provides comfort. We must teach it clearly, guard it carefully, and apply it practically.

Let David’s words become our confession and comfort: “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” (Psalm 139:7-8, NKJV). This is not the poetry of primitive imagination but the revelation of ultimate reality. God is not a localized being with a body who travels from place to place. He is the omnipresent Spirit who fills heaven and earth, in whom we live and move and have our being.

May we never exchange this glorious truth for the shabby substitute of a limited, localized deity. May we worship the God who is actually revealed in Scripture—infinite, eternal, unchangeable, and yes, omnipresent. And may this truth not remain in our heads as cold doctrine but burn in our hearts as living reality, transforming how we pray, worship, live, and die.

For we serve not a God who must travel to meet us but One who promises: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, NKJV). This is the gospel’s guarantee, the believer’s comfort, and the truth that Dake’s errors can never overthrow. The omnipresent God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—fills all in all, forever and ever. Amen.

Contrasting Orthodox Omnipresence with Dake’s Teaching

On the Nature of God’s Being

Orthodox Position: God is pure spirit (John 4:24), without body, parts, or passions. He is incorporeal, immaterial, and infinite. As the Westminster Confession states, God is “a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible.”

Dake’s Error: “God has a personal spirit body… God has a real body and goes from place to place as any being with a body goes.”¹³ Dake reduces God to a glorified physical being, essentially a superhuman with greater powers but similar limitations.

The Problem: By giving God a body, Dake subjects Him to spatial limitations. A body occupies space and can only be in one location. This directly contradicts Jeremiah 23:24: “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” A bodily being cannot fill all things—only an incorporeal spirit can be wholly present everywhere.

On God’s Presence

Orthodox Position: God is essentially, personally, and actively present everywhere simultaneously. He doesn’t divide Himself or extend Himself—He is wholly present at every point in creation while remaining transcendent over creation.

Dake’s Error: “God is omni-present but not omni-body, that is, His presence can be felt everywhere by intelligent beings, but His body cannot be in all places at once.”¹⁴ He reduces presence to felt influence or awareness rather than actual ontological presence.

The Problem: Dake creates an impossible distinction between God’s “presence” and God Himself. If God has a localized body, He cannot be present where His body is not. Dake tries to maintain omnipresence verbally while denying it conceptually, creating an incoherent theological system.

On Divine Movement

Orthodox Position: God doesn’t move from place to place because He is already everywhere. As Stephen Charnock noted: “God cannot be said to move from place to place who is equally in all places. Motion is a change of place, but there can be no change in Him who fills all places.”

Dake’s Error: “God goes from place to place in a body just like anyone else.”¹⁵ He portrays God as traveling between locations, arriving and departing like a cosmic commuter.

The Problem: Movement implies change, contradicting God’s immutability (Malachi 3:6). It implies absence from departed locations and absence from destinations until arrival. This makes God’s presence uncertain and His help delayed by travel time.

On Heaven’s Nature

Orthodox Position: Heaven, when referring to God’s dwelling, is not a physical location that contains God but represents His transcendent presence and glory. “Heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You” (1 Kings 8:27).

Dake’s Error: “Heaven is a material planet as well as Earth,”¹⁶ complete with “real cities,” “Mansions,” and “Food.”¹⁷ Dake materializes heaven and localizes God there as a physical inhabitant.

The Problem: If heaven is a material planet and God dwells there bodily, God becomes part of the material creation, subject to created limitations. The Creator-creature distinction collapses, and God becomes merely the most powerful being within creation rather than transcendent over it.

On Anthropomorphisms

Orthodox Position: Scripture uses anthropomorphic language (human descriptions) to accommodate our understanding of the infinite God. References to God’s “hands,” “eyes,” or “coming down” are figurative expressions, not literal physical descriptions.

Dake’s Error: Dake interprets anthropomorphisms literally, insisting God has actual body parts, wears clothes, eats food, and physically travels. He fails to distinguish between accommodated language and literal description.

The Problem: Consistent literal interpretation would give God wings (Psalm 91:4), make Him a rock (Psalm 18:2), and have Him breathing fire (Psalm 18:8). Dake arbitrarily chooses which anthropomorphisms to take literally, creating an inconsistent hermeneutic that distorts God’s nature.

On Prayer and Providence

Orthodox Position: God hears all prayers simultaneously and governs all creation immediately because He is present everywhere. Providence requires immediate presence to all things being governed.

Dake’s Error: With God traveling in a body, He cannot hear all prayers simultaneously or govern all things immediately. Dake’s system requires God to either travel at infinite speed (making “location” meaningless) or miss events while in transit.

The Problem: This undermines confidence in prayer (Is God listening now or elsewhere?), providence (Can God govern what He’s not present to?), and salvation (How does God draw all people if He must travel between them?).

The Ultimate Contrast

Orthodox Christianity presents the infinite, eternal, unchangeable God who fills heaven and earth, immediately present to all creation while transcendent over it. This God can make and keep universal promises, hear all prayers, govern all things, and be truly worthy of worship as absolutely supreme.

Dake’s Teaching reduces God to a glorified creature—more powerful than us but essentially like us, with a body that travels, limited to one location, unable to be truly omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent. This is not the God of the Bible but an idol of human imagination.

The contrast could not be starker. We must choose between the infinite God of Scripture and history or Dake’s finite deity. Between the omnipresent Spirit or a localized body. Between the transcendent Creator or a cosmic creature. Between orthodox faith or innovative heresy. The choice determines whether we worship the true God or an idol, whether we have solid theological ground or shifting sand, whether we pass on truth or error to future generations.

Final Exhortation

Let us hold fast to the biblical confession that has sustained the church through ages: Our God is not a distant deity who must travel to help us, not a heavenly administrator managing from afar, not a cosmic being limited by a body. He is the omnipresent Spirit who fills all in all, in whom we live and move and have our being, who is nearer to us than we are to ourselves, who promises never to leave nor forsake His people.

This is not merely superior theology—it is superior comfort, superior power for living, superior ground for worship. When we pray, we speak to the God who is present. When we suffer, we suffer in the presence of the God who comforts. When we’re tempted, we face temptation in the presence of the God who provides escape. When we die, we die into the presence of the God who has been with us all along.

May God grant His church clarity to recognize error, courage to refute it, and commitment to proclaim the truth about His omnipresent nature. May we never trade the glory of the infinite God for the poverty of a limited deity. And may the truth of God’s omnipresence not remain abstract doctrine but become living reality that transforms our worship, holiness, prayer, and hope.

“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 23:24, NKJV)

---

Footnotes

¹ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), 1035.

² Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), Notes on Godhead.

³ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), Notes on Omnipresence.

⁴ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), Notes on Ezekiel 1.

⁵ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Study Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales), Notes on Heaven, p. 1034 of O.T.

⁶ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “50 Facts About the Planet Heaven,” items 1, 10, 11, 26, 27.

⁷ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Bible Old Testament (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales), p. 15.

⁸ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “50 Facts About the Planet Heaven,” item 26.

⁹ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), Notes on Ezekiel 1:26-27.

¹⁰ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Study Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales), Notes on Trinity and Godhead.

¹¹ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Study Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales), Notes on Invisibility of God.

¹² Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), 1035.

¹³ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), p. 57.

¹⁴ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), p. 61.

¹⁵ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), p. 57.

¹⁶ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), p. 96.

¹⁷ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), “50 Facts About the Planet Heaven.”

¹⁸ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 60.

¹⁹ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 61-62.

²⁰ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 61.

²¹ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 60-61.

²² Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 836.

²³ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 835-836.

²⁴ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 57.

²⁵ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 57.

²⁶ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 53.

²⁷ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 62.

²⁸ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 52.

²⁹ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), p. 60.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogion. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1995.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.

Augustine of Hippo. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Augustine of Hippo. On the Trinity. Translated by Edmund Hill. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1991.

Calvin, John. 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. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.

Clement of Rome. First Epistle to the Corinthians. In The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912.

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

Dake, Finis Jennings. God’s Plan for Man. Revised edition. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977.

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

Edwards, Jonathan. Original Sin. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 3. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

Ignatius of Antioch. Epistle to the Magnesians. In The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912.

Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885.

Justin Martyr. First Apology. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885.

Lawrence, Brother. The Practice of the Presence of God. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1982.

Luther, Martin. That These Words of Christ, “This is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics. In Luther’s Works, Volume 37. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961.

Owen, John. Vindiciae Evangelicae. In The Works of John Owen, Volume 12. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1966.

Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. Morning and Evening. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Tozer, A.W. The Knowledge of the Holy. San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1961.

Watson, Thomas. A Body of Divinity. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.

Secondary Sources:

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. 4 volumes. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003-2008.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938.

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

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

Helm, Paul. Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Leftow, Brian. Time and Eternity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

Nash, Ronald H. The Concept of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

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

Pink, A.W. The Attributes of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1975.

Sproul, R.C. The Character of God: Discovering the God Who Is. Ventura, CA: Regal, 1995.

Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1952.

Confessional Documents:

The Westminster Confession of Faith. 1646. In The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Lawrenceville, GA: Presbyterian Church in America, 2007.

The London Baptist Confession of Faith. 1689. Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2012.

The Westminster Larger Catechism. 1648. In The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Lawrenceville, GA: Presbyterian Church in America, 2007.

The Heidelberg Catechism. 1563. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 1988.

Scripture Versions:

Primary: The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.

Secondary: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001.

Secondary: Legacy Standard Bible. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2021.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.