Chapter 06: The Attack on God’s Omnipresence

Of all the divine attributes that Finis Jennings Dake systematically dismantled in his theological writings, perhaps none is more foundational to biblical faith than God’s omnipresence—His ability to be fully present everywhere at once. This doctrine, affirmed throughout Scripture and cherished by believers for two millennia, provides the basis for personal prayer, divine providence, and the intimate relationship between God and His creation. Yet Dake’s hyperliteral interpretation of Scripture, combined with his insistence that God possesses a physical body, forced him to deny this essential attribute. The result is a God who is powerful but not present, mighty but not near, exalted but not intimate—a deity fundamentally different from the God revealed in Scripture.

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

The implications of Dake’s denial of divine omnipresence extend far beyond abstract theology. If God is not everywhere present, then He cannot hear the simultaneous prayers of millions of believers around the globe. He cannot personally oversee the details of every human life. He cannot be the ever-present help in trouble that Scripture promises. He becomes, in essence, a localized deity who must choose where to focus His attention, leaving vast portions of His creation unattended. This chapter will examine how Dake arrived at this devastating conclusion, demonstrate why his position contradicts clear biblical teaching, and explore the practical ramifications of accepting his view.

The Root of the Problem: A Physical God Cannot Be Omnipresent

To understand Dake’s denial of omnipresence, we must first recognize how his doctrine of divine corporeality—his teaching that God has a physical body—necessarily led to this conclusion. In his extensive notes on Genesis 1:26, Dake wrote: “God has a personal spirit body…shape, image, likeness, bodily parts such as, back parts, heart, hands and fingers, mouth, lips, tongue, feet, eyes, hair, head, face, arms, loins, and other bodily parts” (Dake Bible, page 1). This assertion, which appears at the very beginning of his annotated Bible, sets the stage for everything that follows.

The logical problem is immediately apparent: a body, by definition, occupies space and exists in a particular location. It has boundaries, dimensions, and limits. It can be in one place or another, but not in all places simultaneously. Dake recognized this logical necessity and, rather than reconsidering his premise that God has a body, he chose to deny God’s omnipresence. Throughout his writings, he consistently maintained that God the Father is localized in heaven and can only be present elsewhere through the Holy Spirit. In his commentary on Ezekiel’s vision, Dake makes this explicit: “God’s body is like that of a man, for man was created in His likeness and His image bodily… This entire description is one of the literal chariots of God on which He rides from place to place when He chooses. That He does ride upon the cherub is stated in 2 Sam. 22:11; Ps. 18:10. God also has many other means of travel and goes from one place to another bodily as all other beings in existence. He is omnipresent, but not omnibody.”¹

This creates a fundamental division within the Godhead that orthodox Christianity has always rejected. In Dake’s system, the Father is limited to a location while the Spirit serves as His representative elsewhere. But this divides God’s essence and makes the persons of the Trinity functionally separate beings with different capabilities—the Father limited by His body, the Spirit unlimited by His nature. This is not the Trinity of historic Christianity but a form of tritheism where three different Gods have different attributes and abilities.

Dake’s Explicit Denials of Omnipresence

Throughout his writings, Dake repeatedly and explicitly denied that God is omnipresent in the traditional sense. In his book “God’s Plan for Man,” he states: “God goes from place to place in a body just like anyone else” (page 57). He elaborates: “He is omnipresent, but not omni-body, that is, His presence can be felt everywhere but His body cannot, as seen in Point 9 below. He wears clothes (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19); eats (Gen. 18:1-22; Exodus 24:11); rests, and because He gets tired, but because activity or rest completes a work (Gen. 2:1-4; Heb. 4:4); dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called Heaven (John 14:1-3; Heb. 11:10-16; 13:14; Rev. 3:12; 21:1-27); sits on a throne (Isa. 6; Rev. 4:1-5; 22:1-5); walks (Gen. 3:8; 18:1-22, 33); rides upon cherubs, the wind, clouds, and chariots drawn by cherubims (Ps. 18:10; 68:17; 104:3; Ezek. 1:1-28); and does do and can do anything that any other person can do bodily that is right and good” (God’s Plan for Man, page 448).

Notice how Dake attempts to have it both ways—claiming God is “omnipresent” while simultaneously denying He is “omni-body.” But this distinction is foreign to Scripture and creates more problems than it solves. If God’s “presence” is everywhere but His “body” is not, then what exactly is this disembodied presence? Is it less than fully God? Is it merely an influence or force? Dake never adequately explains this distinction, and for good reason—it cannot be explained without dividing God’s essence. In his glossary definition, Dake states: “Omnipresent, everywhere present. 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 This demonstrates that Dake’s denial of God’s omnipresent nature extends to all three persons of the Trinity, whom he views as having separate bodies that travel from location to location.

Dake’s explanation of this “omnipresence without omnibody” reveals his fundamental error. He writes: “Spirit beings, including God, Himself, cannot be omnipresent in body, for their bodies are of ordinary size and must be at one place at a time, in the same way that bodies of men are always localized, being in one place at a time. God, 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.”¹¹ This statement reveals Dake’s view that God’s presence is more like an emotional feeling of connectedness rather than His actual substantial being.

Dake’s Misinterpretation of Biblical Language

The foundation of Dake’s error lies in his hyperliteral interpretation of anthropomorphic language in Scripture. When the Bible speaks of God “coming down” or “going up,” Dake interprets these as literal movements of a physical being from one location to another. This interpretive method appears throughout his Bible and systematically destroys the biblical doctrine of omnipresence.

The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in Misinterpretation

One of Dake’s most frequently cited prooftexts for his denial of omnipresence is Genesis 11:5, which states: “And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.” In his note on this verse, Dake writes: “The fact that God came down from heaven to earth on different occasions proves He moves from place to place and is not omnipresent in body, but in Spirit through the Holy Spirit.”

This interpretation reveals Dake’s fundamental hermeneutical error. He takes anthropomorphic language—language that describes God in human terms to help us understand His actions—and interprets it literally as describing God’s actual nature. But this approach creates immediate problems. If we must interpret “came down” literally, what do we do with Psalm 139:7-10, where David declares that God is simultaneously in heaven, hell, and the uttermost parts of the sea? How can God literally “come down” to earth if He’s already there?

The proper understanding of Genesis 11:5 recognizes it as anthropomorphic language expressing God’s judicial action. The “coming down” represents God’s direct intervention in human affairs, His personal attention to the situation, His movement from patience to judgment. It’s similar to a judge saying “I’ll look into this matter personally”—not meaning the judge was previously blind to it, but that special attention is now being given. God doesn’t need to travel to see what humans are doing; the language accommodates our understanding of divine action.

The Sodom Investigation: Another Misreading

Dake similarly misinterprets Genesis 18:21, where God says concerning Sodom: “I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.” Dake sees this as proof that God must physically travel to learn information. But this interpretation creates an even bigger problem than localization—it suggests God lacks knowledge and must investigate to learn facts. In his notes on this passage, Dake explains: “This plainly teaches that God, as well as men and angels, is limited to one place as far as the body is concerned. The doctrine of omnipresence of God can be proved, but not His omnibody. In His body He goes from place to place like other persons.”³ Yet this reading fails to account for the immediate context where Abraham stood “before the bodily presence of God, but not before the bodily presence of the 2 angels because they went to Sodom and were no longer bodily present.”⁴

The context makes clear this is accommodative language. God is explaining His actions to Abraham in terms humans can understand. The “going down” and “seeing” represent God’s judicial process, not a fact-finding mission. God already knows Sodom’s sin—He’s the one who told Abraham about it! The language expresses the thoroughness and justice of God’s judgment, not His need to gather information.

Scripture consistently affirms that God knows all things without investigation: “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Hebrews 4:13). If God must travel to gather information, He is neither omnipresent nor omniscient, and we are left with a deity who differs from humans only in degree, not in kind.

The Biblical Affirmation of Divine Omnipresence

Scripture overwhelmingly affirms God’s omnipresence—His full presence everywhere simultaneously. This doctrine appears not as an abstract philosophical concept but as a practical truth that affects worship, prayer, ethics, and daily life. The biblical writers assume and celebrate God’s omnipresence as essential to His deity.

The Classic Text: Psalm 139:7-10

No passage more clearly teaches divine omnipresence than Psalm 139:7-10: “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.”

David’s rhetorical questions expect the answer “nowhere.” There is no place one can go to escape God’s presence because God is fully present everywhere. Notice the comprehensive scope: heaven (the highest place), hell/Sheol (the lowest place), and the uttermost parts of the sea (the farthest place). This isn’t poetic exaggeration but theological truth—God fills all space while transcending it.

Dake’s attempt to explain this passage while maintaining God has a body creates interpretive chaos. He argues that this refers only to God’s Spirit, not to God Himself. But this divides God into parts and suggests the Spirit is somehow more omnipresent than the Father. This is not Trinitarian theology but a form of modalism that makes the persons of the Trinity different modes of divine presence rather than distinct persons sharing one essence. In his comment on Psalm 139:8, Dake explicitly states: “In what sense is God in hell? In the same sense that His presence is everywhere. His personal body is not in hell and never has been there except to create it (Mt. 25:41), as far as we know… Though God’s personal body is only at one place at a time, His presence is felt in all parts of the universe.”⁵

Jeremiah’s Thunderous Declaration: Jeremiah 23:23-24

Perhaps the most direct refutation of Dake’s position comes from Jeremiah 23:23-24: “Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.”

This passage explicitly addresses the error of thinking God is localized. God is not merely “at hand” (near) or “afar off” (distant)—He fills heaven and earth. The Hebrew word “fill” (מָלֵא, male) means to fill completely, to permeate entirely. God doesn’t just influence heaven and earth or send His presence there; He fills them with His being.

Dake’s note on this verse is telling. He writes: “God is NOT omnipresent in body but in Spirit” (note on Jeremiah 23:24). But the text doesn’t make this distinction. It simply says “I” fill heaven and earth—not “My Spirit” or “My presence” but “I,” the personal God Himself. Dake’s insertion of a distinction foreign to the text reveals his system’s weakness. He must constantly add qualifications and distinctions the Bible doesn’t make to maintain his doctrine of divine corporeality.

Solomon’s Temple Dedication: 1 Kings 8:27

At the dedication of the temple, Solomon proclaimed: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?”

Solomon understood what Dake missed: God cannot be contained or localized. Even “the heaven of heavens”—the highest, most exalted realm—cannot contain God. How then can God have a body that exists in heaven? Solomon’s statement makes sense only if God transcends all spatial limitations. A God with a body would be contained within heaven, contradicting Solomon’s declaration.

The temple dedication prayer assumes God’s omnipresence. Solomon asks God to hear prayers offered toward the temple from anywhere on earth, whether from Israelites or foreigners, whether in the land or in captivity. This only makes sense if God is present everywhere to hear these prayers. A localized God could not simultaneously hear prayers from multiple locations.

Paul’s Sermon on Mars Hill: Acts 17:27-28

When Paul preached to the Greek philosophers in Athens, he declared that God is not far from any of us: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being.”

Paul’s argument assumes God’s omnipresence. God is “not far from every one of us”—not just collectively but individually. More dramatically, “in him we live, and move, and have our being.” We exist within God’s presence; He encompasses our existence. This is impossible if God has a body located in heaven. We cannot live and move within a God who is spatially distant from us.

Paul’s sermon specifically refutes pagan ideas of localized deities who dwell in temples or specific locations. He declares that God “dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (v. 24) precisely because He fills all things. Dake’s God, limited by a body to a specific location, resembles the pagan deities Paul refuted more than the biblical God Paul proclaimed.

The Theological Necessity of Omnipresence

Omnipresence is not merely one attribute among many; it’s essential to God being truly God. Without omnipresence, other divine attributes become impossible or meaningless. The interconnected nature of God’s attributes means that denying one undermines all.

Omnipresence and God’s Infinity

God’s infinity means He has no limits or boundaries. He is unlimited in every perfection. But a God with a body is necessarily finite—the body has boundaries, dimensions, limits. It occupies this space but not that space. It has an outside and an inside. This is the very definition of finitude.

Dake attempts to maintain that God is infinite while having a body, but this is logically impossible. Infinity and spatial limitation are contradictory concepts. You cannot be unlimited and limited simultaneously. By giving God a body, Dake makes Him finite, and a finite God is not the God of Scripture but an idol of human imagination. In his section on the 22 Attributes of God, Dake lists God as “Infinite: in presence (1 Ki. 8:27); power (Mt. 28:18); acts (Mt. 19:26); in time (Dt. 33:27; Ps. 90:2; Isa. 57:15); knowledge (Rom. 11:33); and in greatness (Ps. 145:3).”⁶ Yet this claim of infinite presence directly contradicts his repeated insistence that God’s body is localized and that He travels from place to place.

The Bible consistently presents God as infinite: “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5). If God’s understanding is infinite but His being is finite (limited by a body), we have the absurdity of an attribute exceeding its possessor. God’s infinity requires His omnipresence; His omnipresence demonstrates His infinity.

Omnipresence and God’s Immensity

Classical theology distinguishes between God’s immensity (His transcendence of all spatial limitations) and His omnipresence (His presence in all places). Immensity means God is not contained by space; omnipresence means He fills all space while transcending it. Both are denied if God has a body.

A body exists within space, is measured by space, and is limited by space. It cannot transcend what contains it. Dake’s God, possessing a body, is contained within the spatial universe rather than transcending it. This makes space greater than God, the creation greater than the Creator. The container becomes greater than what it contains.

Scripture presents God as transcending all spatial categories while being present within them. He is both transcendent (above and beyond creation) and immanent (present within creation). This paradox is resolved only by recognizing that God is spirit, not body. A spiritual God can fill all things without being contained by them; a bodied God is necessarily contained and limited.

Omnipresence and God’s Eternity

God’s relationship to time (eternity) parallels His relationship to space (omnipresence). Just as God transcends spatial limitations while being present in all places, He transcends temporal limitations while being present in all moments. But a God with a body exists within both space and time, subject to their limitations.

Movement from place to place, which Dake attributes to God, requires time. It involves being in one place at one moment and another place at another moment. This subjects God to temporal sequence and spatial transition. He becomes a being within creation rather than creation’s transcendent source.

The biblical God is “the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity” (Isaiah 57:15). He doesn’t exist within time and space but encompasses them. Past, present, and future are equally present to Him. Every place is immediately present to Him. This is possible only for a God without bodily limitations.

The Difference Between God’s Presence and Manifestation

One of Dake’s fundamental errors is confusing God’s special manifestations with His essential presence. Scripture does speak of God “coming” or “appearing” in special ways, but these are manifestations of His presence for specific purposes, not arrivals of an absent God.

Understanding Theophanies

A theophany is a visible manifestation of God for a specific purpose. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, to Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire, or to Isaiah in the temple vision, these were special manifestations, not God’s arrival from elsewhere. God was already present; He chose to manifest that presence visibly.

Dake interprets every theophany as God literally traveling from heaven to earth. But this creates numerous problems. If God must leave heaven to appear on earth, who’s maintaining the universe while He’s gone? Who’s hearing prayers from other locations? Who’s sustaining the countless galaxies and atoms that require constant divine preservation?

The biblical understanding recognizes theophanies as accommodations to human limitation. God, who is always and fully present everywhere, chooses to manifest His presence in particular ways at particular times for particular purposes. The manifestation is local and temporal; God’s presence is universal and eternal.

The Incarnation: The Ultimate Special Presence

The incarnation of Christ represents God’s supreme special presence without denying His omnipresence. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), yet the Word continued to fill all things. Jesus could say both “I came down from heaven” (John 6:38) and “the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13) because His divine nature remained omnipresent even while His human nature was localized.

Dake’s system makes the incarnation incomprehensible. If God the Father already has a body and God the Son has His own separate body (as Dake teaches), what happened in the incarnation? Did a God with a body take on another body? This isn’t mystery but confusion, not paradox but contradiction. Dake’s view of the Trinity compounds this problem. He explicitly teaches: “What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul, and spirit.”⁷ This makes the Trinity not three persons in one divine essence, but three entirely separate beings, each with his own body.

The orthodox understanding preserves both the reality of the incarnation and the truth of divine omnipresence. The Son, who is fully God and therefore omnipresent in His divine nature, took on human nature with its spatial limitations. One person, two natures—divine omnipresence and human localization united without confusion or division.

The Shekinah Glory

The Old Testament speaks of God’s glory (shekinah) dwelling in the tabernacle and temple. Dake interprets this as God literally residing in these structures. But Scripture explicitly denies this limited understanding. Solomon declared that heaven itself cannot contain God, much less the temple (1 Kings 8:27).

The shekinah was a special manifestation of God’s presence, not the totalization of it. God chose to manifest His glory in the temple while remaining fully present everywhere. The temple was not God’s exclusive dwelling but a focal point of His covenantal presence with Israel. God could manifest His glory in the temple while simultaneously being present in Babylon with the exiles, in Egypt with the refugees, and throughout the earth with all creation.

This distinction between presence and manifestation resolves many apparent contradictions in Scripture. God can “come” to a place where He already is by manifesting His presence in a new way. He can “depart” from a place while remaining present by withdrawing a particular manifestation. He can be “near” to the righteous and “far” from the wicked while being spatially present to both.

Why Omnipresence Is Essential to God Being God

Omnipresence is not an optional attribute that God could lack while remaining God. It’s essential to deity itself. A non-omnipresent being, however powerful, is not God but a creature. This is why Dake’s denial of omnipresence is so serious—it’s not a minor adjustment to our understanding of God but a fundamental denial of His deity.

The Creator-Creature Distinction

The most fundamental distinction in all reality is between the Creator and the creation. The Creator transcends all creaturely limitations; creatures exist within limitations. Spatial limitation is a defining characteristic of creaturehood. Every creature exists here but not there, occupies this space but not that space. Only the Creator transcends spatial limitation through omnipresence.

By giving God a body and denying His omnipresence, Dake places God within the category of creature. His God differs from other beings only in degree—more powerful, more knowledgeable, more good—but not in kind. This is not the infinite qualitative distinction between Creator and creature that Scripture presents but a mere quantitative difference that could theoretically be overcome.

Scripture consistently maintains the absolute distinction between Creator and creature. “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” (Isaiah 40:18). The answer is no one and nothing because God differs from all creatures not just in degree but in kind. Omnipresence marks this difference. Creatures are localized; the Creator is omnipresent.

The Basis of God’s Universal Rule

God’s sovereignty—His rule over all creation—depends on His omnipresence. How can God rule what He cannot reach? How can He govern where He is not present? A localized God could only rule locally, govern regionally, control partially. Universal sovereignty requires universal presence.

Dake attempts to maintain God’s universal rule while denying His omnipresence by suggesting God rules through intermediaries or at a distance. But this makes God’s rule indirect and mediated rather than immediate and direct. It introduces potential for failure, rebellion, or incompetence in the intermediaries. It makes God dependent on created beings to accomplish His will where He is absent.

Scripture presents God’s rule as immediate and direct: “He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand” (Daniel 4:35). This is possible only if God is present everywhere to execute His will directly. Omnipresence is the foundation of omnipotence—God can act everywhere because He is everywhere.

The Ground of Divine Knowledge

God’s omniscience—His knowledge of all things—relates intimately to His omnipresence. God knows all things because He is present to all things. Nothing is distant from Him, hidden from Him, or removed from His immediate awareness. “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Hebrews 4:13).

Dake’s localized God must gather information about distant events through investigation or intermediaries. He must “come down” to see what’s happening on earth, send messengers to gather intelligence, or rely on reports from others. This isn’t omniscience but limited knowledge that grows through discovery.

But the biblical God needs no informants or investigators because He is immediately present to all reality. He doesn’t learn about events; He knows them directly through His immediate presence. His knowledge isn’t mediated through distance or delegation but immediate through presence. Omnipresence grounds omniscience; denial of one undermines the other.

Practical Implications for Prayer and Worship

Dake’s denial of omnipresence doesn’t remain in the realm of abstract theology but has devastating practical implications for Christian life and worship. If God is not omnipresent, the most basic practices of faith become problematic or impossible.

The Problem of Prayer

Prayer assumes God’s omnipresence. When millions of believers worldwide pray simultaneously, they assume God hears each prayer personally and immediately. But if God is localized in heaven, how can He hear prayers from earth? Dake suggests the Holy Spirit mediates prayers to the Father, but this makes prayer indirect and impersonal. We’re not talking to God but to an intermediary who talks to God. Dake’s explanation of omnipresence makes this explicit: “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).”⁸ But this analogy actually undermines prayer—feeling someone’s presence thousands of miles away is vastly different from that person actually being present to hear and respond.

Furthermore, if God must travel to respond to prayers, what happens to urgent requests? A localized God might be “busy” elsewhere when we desperately need Him. The promise “Before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear” (Isaiah 65:24) becomes impossible. God cannot answer before we call if He’s not present to know we’re about to call. He cannot hear while we’re speaking if He’s located elsewhere.

The biblical doctrine of omnipresence assures believers that God is immediately present to hear every prayer instantly. No prayer goes unheard because of distance. No request is delayed by travel time. No cry is unnoticed because God is elsewhere. “The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry” (Psalm 34:15)—not will be, but are, continuously and immediately.

The Worship Dilemma

Jesus taught that “God is spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). This statement came in response to a question about worship location—Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim. Jesus transcended the question by revealing that true worship isn’t about location because God isn’t localized. He is spirit, present everywhere, accessible anywhere.

But Dake’s God, having a body and being localized, brings back the very problem Jesus resolved. If God is located in heaven, are prayers and worship offered on earth distant from Him? Are some places closer to God than others? Should we face a particular direction when praying, like Muslims facing Mecca? The freedom of worship “in spirit and truth” anywhere depends on God’s omnipresence.

Corporate worship also assumes omnipresence. When churches gather worldwide for Sunday worship, they assume God is present with each congregation. The promise “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20) requires omnipresence. A localized God could only be present with one congregation at a time, making most worship services God-absent exercises in futility.

The Comfort of God’s Presence

Perhaps no truth brings more comfort to believers than God’s constant presence. “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Hebrews 13:5). “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20). “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me” (Psalm 23:4). These promises assume and require omnipresence.

Dake’s theology strips believers of this comfort. His God might leave us to attend to business elsewhere. He might forsake us temporarily to handle emergencies in distant places. He cannot be with all believers always because His body can only be in one place at a time. The personal, intimate, constant presence of God that sustained martyrs, comforted mourners, and strengthened sufferers becomes an impossibility.

Consider the implications for believers facing persecution, suffering, or death. They need God’s immediate presence, not a distant God who might come if He’s not busy elsewhere. They need the assurance that nothing can separate them from God’s presence, not the uncertainty of a God whose body limits His availability. Omnipresence provides this assurance; Dake’s theology destroys it.

The Divine Providence Problem

Providence refers to God’s continuous action in sustaining and governing all creation. Scripture presents providence as immediate, universal, and constant. “He upholdeth all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). This requires omnipresence—God must be present to all things to sustain all things.

The Sustaining Presence

Creation is not self-sustaining but requires God’s continuous action to exist. “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). If God withdrew His sustaining presence for an instant, creation would collapse into nothingness. This is why Colossians 1:17 declares, “By him all things consist”—hold together, cohere, continue.

Dake’s localized God cannot provide this universal sustaining presence. If God is bodily present in heaven, how does He sustain earth? If He’s attending to our galaxy, how does He maintain distant galaxies? The vast universe with its billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars, requires a God who is immediately present to all, not traveling between locations.

Consider the subatomic level where particles exist in quantum states requiring constant divine sustenance. Every atom in the universe needs God’s immediate sustaining presence. A God who must travel from atom to atom, galaxy to galaxy, maintaining each in sequence, is impossibly inadequate for the task. Only an omnipresent God can simultaneously sustain all reality.

The Governance Challenge

God’s governance extends to every detail of creation. “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father” (Matthew 10:29). This intimate involvement in countless details requires omnipresence. A sparrow falls in China while another falls in Chile—God is present to both, aware of both, governing both.

Natural laws express God’s regular governance of creation, but they’re not independent forces operating in God’s absence. They’re descriptions of God’s consistent action. Gravity works because God consistently acts in that way. If God were absent from any location, natural laws would cease there. The uniformity of nature across the universe demonstrates God’s omnipresent governance.

Dake’s God could only govern where He is present. Vast reaches of the universe would operate independently of God, following natural laws without divine oversight. Events would occur “without the Father,” contradicting Jesus’ teaching. Providence would be partial, limited to God’s current location, leaving most of creation to chance or secondary causes.

The Problem of Miracles

Miracles are special acts of divine providence where God acts in unusual ways. But miracles require God’s presence to act. When Jesus healed the centurion’s servant at a distance (Matthew 8:5-13), He demonstrated divine omnipresence. He didn’t travel to the servant but healed him from afar because He was already present to both locations.

Dake’s theology makes distant miracles impossible. His God would need to travel to perform miracles, creating time delays and logistical problems. Simultaneous miracles in different locations would be impossible. The feeding of the five thousand couldn’t occur while someone elsewhere was being healed. God’s miraculous intervention would be limited by the travel time of His body.

Scripture records numerous simultaneous divine actions requiring omnipresence. At the same moment God might be: delivering Israel from Egypt, sustaining creation, hearing prayers worldwide, performing miracles in multiple locations, and governing all natural processes. This is possible only for an omnipresent God, impossible for Dake’s localized deity.

The Holy Spirit Problem in Dake’s System

Dake’s attempt to preserve some form of divine omnipresence while denying it to the Father creates severe problems for pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit). He argues that God is omnipresent “in Spirit through the Holy Spirit” but not in body. This solution creates more problems than it solves.

Division Within the Trinity

By making the Spirit alone omnipresent while the Father and Son are localized, Dake divides the Trinity into beings with different essential attributes. The Father is limited by His body, the Son by His body, but the Spirit is unlimited. This isn’t the biblical Trinity where three persons share one divine essence but three different beings with different capabilities. Dake’s explicit teaching on the Trinity reinforces this division: “The separate persons in Elohim always retain their own personal body, soul, and spirit, yet they are one in perfect unity.”⁹ He further states that “if there are three separate persons, then all three would have to have a separate body, soul and spirit, as is true of any three persons we could use as an example.”¹⁰

Orthodox Trinitarian theology affirms that all three persons share all divine attributes. What is true of the divine essence is true of each person. If omnipresence is a divine attribute, all three persons are omnipresent. If the Father lacks omnipresence, He lacks a divine attribute and is therefore not fully God. Dake’s solution undermines the full deity of the Father and Son.

Furthermore, if the Spirit alone is omnipresent, is the Spirit more divine than the Father and Son? Does the Spirit have attributes the Father lacks? This creates a hierarchy within the Trinity where one person is greater than the others, contradicting the biblical affirmation of equality among the persons.

The Mediation Problem

Dake suggests the Spirit mediates the Father’s presence to creation, making the Father present through the Spirit where His body is not. But this makes our relationship with the Father indirect and mediated rather than immediate and personal. We don’t experience the Father Himself but only the Spirit representing the Father.

This contradicts Jesus’ promise that both He and the Father would dwell with believers: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). Not the Spirit alone, but “we”—Father and Son—will dwell with believers. This requires the Father’s omnipresence, not just the Spirit’s.

The mediation problem extends to revelation. If the Father is not omnipresent, He cannot directly reveal Himself everywhere but must work through the omnipresent Spirit. This makes all revelation indirect, mediated through a third party rather than direct from the Father. The personal, immediate self-revelation of God becomes impossible.

The Indwelling Confusion

Scripture teaches that believers are indwelt by the Spirit, but also that Christ dwells in believers (Colossians 1:27) and that God the Father dwells in them (1 John 4:12-15). This mutual indwelling requires omnipresence of all three persons. If only the Spirit is omnipresent, only the Spirit can truly indwell believers.

Dake’s system forces us to choose: either the biblical statements about the Father and Son dwelling in believers are false, or they’re metaphorical ways of describing the Spirit’s indwelling alone. Neither option is acceptable. Scripture presents the real, personal indwelling of the triune God, not just one person of the Trinity.

The temple imagery reinforces this. Believers are called temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) but also temples of God (1 Corinthians 3:16) and dwelling places of Christ (Ephesians 3:17). The entire Trinity dwells in believers, which requires the omnipresence of all three persons, not just the Spirit.

How Dake’s Error Relates to Ancient Heresies

Dake’s denial of divine omnipresence is not a new error but resurrects ancient heresies the church definitively rejected centuries ago. Understanding these historical parallels helps us appreciate why the church has always affirmed omnipresence as essential to orthodox theology.

The Anthropomorphite Heresy

In the fourth century, a group called the Anthropomorphites taught that God has a literal human form with body parts. Like Dake, they interpreted anthropomorphic language literally and concluded God has eyes, hands, feet, and other bodily organs. This necessarily limited God to a location and denied His omnipresence.

The church fathers vigorously opposed this heresy. They recognized that a bodily God is a finite God, a localized God is not omnipresent, and a God who is not omnipresent is not truly God. The councils and creeds affirmed God’s spirituality and omnipresence against these errors. The Nicene Creed’s opening affirmation of God as “maker of heaven and earth” implies His transcendence of both, which requires omnipresence.

Dake essentially revives the Anthropomorphite heresy with minor modifications. He calls God’s body a “spirit body” rather than a physical body, but the problems remain the same. Any body, whether physical or spiritual, has location and limits. The church’s rejection of Anthropomorphitism applies equally to Dake’s teaching.

The Mormon Parallel

Dake’s theology bears striking resemblance to Mormon doctrine, which also teaches that God the Father has a body and is therefore not omnipresent. Mormons explicitly teach that God is an exalted man with a tangible body of flesh and bones, localized in space, progressing through time. This is why orthodox Christianity recognizes Mormonism as outside the Christian faith.

While Dake would reject comparison to Mormonism, his fundamental error is the same: giving God a body and thereby denying His omnipresence. The specific type of body (physical for Mormons, “spiritual” for Dake) doesn’t alter the theological consequence. Both systems replace the infinite, omnipresent God of Scripture with a finite, localized being.

The parallel extends to their treatment of the Trinity. Both Dake and Mormons teach three separate beings rather than one God in three persons. Both make the persons of the Trinity separate Gods with separate bodies. Both systems are polytheistic rather than monotheistic, tritheistic rather than Trinitarian.

The Stoic Conception

Ancient Stoicism taught that God is material and extended throughout the universe as a kind of refined matter or fire. While this preserved a form of omnipresence, it made God part of creation rather than transcendent over it. God became the soul of the world, present everywhere but not distinct from creation.

Dake avoids the Stoic error of making God material, but his insistence on God having some kind of body creates similar problems. If God has any kind of body, He exists within the created order rather than transcending it. He becomes the greatest being within reality rather than reality’s transcendent source.

The church rejected Stoic materialism because it compromised God’s transcendence and made Him subject to creation’s limitations. Dake’s “spirit body” doctrine, while avoiding crude materialism, falls into the same fundamental error of placing God within creaturely categories rather than above them.

The Missions and Evangelism Impact

Dake’s denial of omnipresence has serious implications for missions and evangelism. The global spread of the gospel depends on God’s omnipresent activity in all nations simultaneously. A localized God creates insurmountable problems for world evangelization.

The Great Commission Challenge

Jesus commanded: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:19-20).

This commission assumes Christ’s omnipresence. He promises to be with all missionaries always, wherever they go. Missionaries in China, Africa, South America, and Europe all claim this promise simultaneously. This requires omnipresence. A localized Christ could only be with one missionary or group at a time, leaving others without His presence during their service.

Dake’s theology undermines missionary confidence. If Christ has a body limited to one location, His promise to be “with you alway” becomes impossible to fulfill. Missionaries entering dangerous areas need the assurance of Christ’s immediate presence, not the hope that He might arrive if He’s not busy elsewhere.

The Global Harvest Problem

Scripture presents salvation as God’s work occurring worldwide simultaneously. At any given moment, people are being convicted of sin, drawn to Christ, and born again across the globe. This requires God’s omnipresent activity. The Spirit must be convicting sinners in Tokyo while simultaneously regenerating believers in London.

Dake’s localized God could only work in one place at a time. The global harvest would be impossible. While God attended to one nation, others would be neglected. The simultaneous advance of the gospel worldwide demonstrates God’s omnipresent activity. Church growth in multiple locations simultaneously proves God is not limited to one location.

Consider Pentecost, where people from many nations heard the gospel and were saved simultaneously (Acts 2). Three thousand were added to the church in one day. This required God’s omnipresent work in thousands of hearts simultaneously. A localized God would need to work sequentially, converting one person at a time, making such mass conversions impossible.

The Spiritual Warfare Reality

Missionaries face spiritual opposition requiring God’s immediate presence and power. Paul writes: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).

This warfare occurs globally and simultaneously. Missionaries in Indonesia face spiritual opposition while those in Brazil encounter different battles. All need God’s immediate presence and power. A God who must travel between battlefields leaves His soldiers unprotected during His absence. Only an omnipresent God can provide immediate support to all His warriors simultaneously.

The promise “Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4) assumes God’s indwelling presence in all believers. If God is localized elsewhere, believers face spiritual enemies alone. The victory over spiritual forces depends on God’s immediate presence, not His eventual arrival from a distant location.

Responding to Dake’s Arguments

Dake offered various arguments to defend his position, but each reveals fundamental misunderstandings of Scripture and theology. Examining and refuting these arguments helps us understand both the error and the truth more clearly.

Argument 1: “The Bible Says God ‘Comes’ and ‘Goes'”

Dake argued that biblical language about God “coming down” or “going up” proves He moves from place to place. He cited Genesis 11:5, 18:21, Exodus 3:8, and similar passages as proof of divine locomotion.

Response: This argument fails to recognize accommodative language. God speaks to humans in terms we understand, describing His actions anthropomorphically. When a judge says, “I’ll look into this matter personally,” we don’t assume the judge was previously blind to it. Similarly, God’s “coming down” expresses His special intervention, not His arrival from absence.

If we interpret such language literally, we create contradictions. How can God “come down” to earth if He already fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24)? How can He “go up” from earth if He’s already in heaven? The literal interpretation creates problems the accommodative interpretation resolves.

Argument 2: “God Has a Throne in Heaven”

Dake argued that Scripture’s references to God’s throne in heaven prove He’s localized there. He cited Isaiah 6:1, Revelation 4:2, and similar passages showing God seated on a heavenly throne.

Response: God’s throne represents His sovereignty and rule, not His spatial limitation. When Scripture says, “Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool” (Isaiah 66:1), it’s not giving God’s seating arrangement but expressing His transcendent rule over all creation.

Furthermore, Scripture speaks of God’s throne being in heaven while simultaneously affirming His presence everywhere. The throne visions are accommodations to human understanding, revealing God’s majesty and authority through imagery we can grasp. They don’t limit God to a location any more than calling Him a “rock” makes Him mineral.

Argument 3: “The Distinction Between Father, Son, and Spirit”

Dake argued that the distinction between the three persons of the Trinity proves they’re separate beings in separate locations. He claimed the Father is in heaven, the Son at His right hand, and the Spirit on earth.

Response: This confuses person and essence. The three persons are distinct but share one divine essence including omnipresence. The distinctions are relational, not spatial. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, but all three are the one omnipresent God.

Scripture attributes omnipresence to all three persons. The Father fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24), the Son is with believers always (Matthew 28:20), and no one can flee from the Spirit (Psalm 139:7). If only one person were omnipresent, only that person would be fully God.

Argument 4: “God Can’t Be in Holy and Unholy Places”

Dake suggested that God’s holiness prevents Him from being present in unholy places, requiring Him to remain in heaven except for special visits to earth.

Response: This confuses God’s presence with His approval. God is present in hell, but He’s not approving of it. He’s present where sin occurs, but He’s not participating in it. Omnipresence doesn’t mean God is equally manifested everywhere or that He approves of everything, but that He is truly present everywhere.

Scripture explicitly states God is present even in Sheol/hell: “If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there” (Psalm 139:8). God’s presence in judgment differs from His presence in blessing, but He’s truly present in both. His holiness doesn’t require absence but judges sin wherever it occurs.

Argument 5: “Omnipresence Makes God Pantheistic”

Dake worried that if God is present everywhere, He becomes identified with creation (pantheism) rather than distinct from it.

Response: This confuses omnipresence with pantheism. Omnipresence means God is present to all creation while remaining distinct from it. He fills all things without being contained by them or identified with them. He’s present to the rock without becoming the rock, present to space without becoming space.

The biblical balance maintains both transcendence (God is above and beyond creation) and immanence (God is present within creation). Denying omnipresence to avoid pantheism creates deism—a God separated from creation. The biblical God is neither pantheistically identified with creation nor deistically separated from it but omnipresently present to it while transcending it.

The Pastoral Impact of Dake’s Teaching

Pastors using Dake’s Bible face serious challenges in ministry. His denial of omnipresence affects pastoral counseling, hospital visitation, funeral ministry, and every aspect of pastoral care that depends on God’s immediate presence with suffering people.

Counseling Without Omnipresence

Pastoral counseling often involves assuring people of God’s presence in their struggles. The counselor points to promises like “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart” (Psalm 34:18) and “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1). These assurances depend on omnipresence.

Under Dake’s theology, the pastor cannot confidently promise God’s presence. God might be attending to other matters. He might be in heaven while the person suffers on earth. The “very present help” becomes a “possibly present help” depending on God’s current location. This uncertainty undermines the comfort Scripture intends to provide.

Consider counseling someone in depression who feels abandoned by God. The biblical response assures them that feelings don’t determine reality—God is present even when unfelt. But Dake’s theology raises the possibility that God really is absent, that the feeling of abandonment reflects the reality of a God elsewhere. This destroys hope rather than building it.

Hospital Ministry Challenges

Hospital visitation involves ministering to people facing surgery, suffering, and death. They need assurance of God’s immediate presence in their crisis. The pastor reads Psalm 23: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me.” This promise requires omnipresence.

Dake’s theology forces the pastor to hedge: “God will try to be with you if He’s not needed elsewhere.” “The Holy Spirit will represent the Father who’s in heaven.” Such qualifications destroy the comfort Scripture provides. The dying need to know God is immediately present, not potentially available.

Multiple hospital visits in different locations assume God’s presence with each patient. The pastor prays with a patient in room 301 while another believer prays in room 450. Both claim God’s presence simultaneously. This is possible only if God is omnipresent, impossible if He’s localized with a body.

Funeral Ministry Problems

Funeral ministry comforts mourners with God’s presence in their grief. “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4). The comfort comes through God’s immediate presence with the grieving, not His distant sympathy from heaven.

Dake’s theology undermines this ministry. If God has a body in heaven, He’s absent from the funeral. The grieving family faces their loss without God’s immediate presence. The promise “I will not leave you comfortless” (John 14:18) becomes meaningless if Christ is bodily limited to one location.

Furthermore, what about simultaneous funerals worldwide? Believers die and are buried every day around the globe. Each family needs and claims God’s presence in their grief. A localized God could attend only one funeral, leaving others without divine comfort. Only omnipresence enables God to comfort all who mourn simultaneously.

Reclaiming the Biblical Doctrine

Having examined Dake’s error and its implications, we must reclaim and celebrate the biblical doctrine of divine omnipresence. This isn’t merely correcting theological error but recovering a truth essential to vibrant Christian faith and practice.

The Wonder of Omnipresence

Omnipresence is not an abstract theological concept but a wonderful reality that transforms daily life. The God who created galaxies is immediately present in your room. The Lord who rules nations hears your whispered prayer. The infinite, eternal, unchangeable God is as near as your breath, closer than your thoughts.

This truth should evoke worship and wonder. We’re never alone because we cannot be alone—God is always present. We’re never abandoned because God cannot abandon what He encompasses. We’re never without help because our Helper is always immediately available. The omnipresent God is the foundation of all spiritual comfort and confidence.

Consider the implications for daily life: Every location is sacred because God is there. Every moment is significant because God is present. Every person we meet is someone in whom God is immediately present. Every situation we face is one where God is already present and active. Omnipresence transforms ordinary life into continuous encounter with the divine.

The Security of Omnipresence

God’s omnipresence provides ultimate security for believers. Paul triumphantly declares: “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 creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39).

This security depends on omnipresence. Nothing can separate us from God’s love because nothing can separate us from God’s presence. He’s present in death and life, in heights and depths, in present and future. No force can create distance between us and God because God transcends and fills all distance.

Dake’s theology destroys this security. If God has a localized body, many things could separate us from Him—distance, barriers, other demands on His attention. Paul’s triumphant declaration becomes wishful thinking rather than certain truth. Security evaporates when God’s presence becomes uncertain.

The Responsibility of Omnipresence

God’s omnipresence also brings responsibility. We live every moment in God’s immediate presence. “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3). There’s no private space where God is absent, no secret place hidden from His presence.

This reality should affect our behavior, thoughts, and attitudes. Sin is not just breaking a distant law but offending the immediately present Lawgiver. Righteousness is not just following rules but pleasing the ever-present Father. Worship is not just attending services but living continuously in the presence of the Holy One.

The practice of God’s presence, as Brother Lawrence called it, depends on the reality of God’s omnipresence. We don’t need to conjure God’s presence through spiritual disciplines; we need to recognize and respond to His already-present reality. Spiritual life is not achieving God’s presence but awakening to it.

Conclusion: The God Who Is There

Finis Jennings Dake’s denial of divine omnipresence represents more than a theological error—it’s an attack on the very nature of God and the foundation of Christian faith. By insisting that God has a body and is therefore localized, Dake reduced the infinite Creator to a finite creature, the omnipresent Lord to a localized being, the God who fills all things to a deity who must travel between places.

The consequences cascade through every area of theology and practice. Prayer becomes uncertain when God might be elsewhere. Providence becomes partial when God can only govern where He’s present. Salvation becomes insecure when God’s presence is not guaranteed. Worship becomes confused when we’re not sure if God is present to receive it. The Christian life becomes a hope that God might show up rather than the certainty that He’s already here.

Scripture consistently and overwhelmingly affirms divine omnipresence. From David’s psalm to Jeremiah’s prophecy, from Solomon’s prayer to Paul’s preaching, the Bible declares that God fills heaven and earth, that nothing can escape His presence, that He is immediately present to all creation while transcending it. This is not poetry or exaggeration but fundamental truth about God’s nature.

The church throughout history has recognized omnipresence as essential to deity. The creeds affirm it, the fathers defended it, the reformers proclaimed it. To deny omnipresence is to depart from orthodox Christianity and embrace a different god—a god who is not the God of Scripture.

For those influenced by Dake’s teaching, the path forward is clear: abandon his erroneous notes and return to Scripture’s plain teaching. God is not a localized being with a body but the omnipresent Spirit who fills all things. He is not absent from any place but immediately present everywhere. He is not traveling between locations but simultaneously present in all locations.

This truth transforms everything. We pray to a God who is immediately present to hear. We worship a God who is here to receive our praise. We serve a God who is present in the work. We face trials with a God who is with us in them. We live every moment in the immediate presence of the infinite, eternal, unchangeable God.

The God of Scripture is not the limited, localized deity of Dake’s imagination but the omnipresent Lord who declares: “I am with you always.” He is not a God who might be there but the God who is there—always, fully, immediately. In Him we live and move and have our being. He is not far from any one of us. He fills heaven and earth. This is the God we worship, serve, and trust—not Dake’s diminished deity but the omnipresent Lord of glory.

The tragedy of Dake’s teaching is not merely that it’s wrong but that it robs believers of the comfort, security, and joy that come from knowing God is always immediately present. It replaces the biblical promise “I will never leave you nor forsake you” with the uncertainty of a God who might be elsewhere. It exchanges the truth of God’s omnipresence for the lie of His limitation.

But the truth remains unchanged by Dake’s error. God is omnipresent. He fills heaven and earth. He is immediately present to every believer, every situation, every need. No distance separates us from Him. No barrier blocks His presence. No limitation restricts His availability. He is here—now, fully, certainly. This is the God of Scripture, the God of the church, the God who is worthy of our worship, trust, and obedience.

Let us therefore reject Dake’s diminished deity and embrace the omnipresent God revealed in Scripture. Let us live in the confidence of His constant presence, worship in the joy of His immediate availability, and serve in the power of His ever-present help. For our God is not confined to heaven or limited by a body but fills all things with His presence while transcending all things in His being. He is truly “God with us”—not occasionally, not potentially, but always and certainly. This is the biblical doctrine of omnipresence, and this is the God we serve.

Footnotes

¹ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on Ezekiel 1:26-28.

² Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), glossary entry “Omnipresent.”

³ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on Genesis 18:21.

⁴ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on Genesis 18:22.

⁵ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on Psalm 139:8.

⁶ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 1035.

⁷ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), “89 Proofs of A Divine Trinity” section.

⁸ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), glossary entry “Omnipresent.”

⁹ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on 1 John 5:7.

¹⁰ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949), 74.

¹¹ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 61.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.