Chapter 07: Undermining God’s Omniscience

Of all the divine attributes that define the God of the Bible, few are as essential to His deity as omniscience—the truth that God knows all things, past, present, and future, actual and possible, in perfect and exhaustive detail. This attribute isn’t merely an academic point of theology; it forms the foundation of our trust in God’s promises, our confidence in His providence, and our assurance of salvation. When we pray, we trust that God knows our needs before we ask. When we read prophecy, we believe God can declare the end from the beginning because He knows all things. When we face trials, we rest in the knowledge that nothing takes God by surprise. Remove omniscience, and the entire structure of biblical faith collapses.

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

Yet Finis Jennings Dake, in his systematic dismantling of orthodox theology, launches a devastating assault on God’s omniscience. While claiming to believe that God knows all things, his actual teaching repeatedly limits, qualifies, and undermines divine knowledge. Through his hyperliteral interpretation of Scripture, Dake presents a God who learns, discovers, investigates, and reacts to unexpected events—a God whose knowledge, while vast, falls short of true omniscience. The implications of this teaching extend far beyond theological debate; they strike at the very heart of who God is and whether He can be trusted with our eternal destiny.

The Biblical Foundation of Divine Omniscience

Before examining Dake’s errors, we must establish what Scripture actually teaches about God’s knowledge. The Bible presents God’s omniscience not as a peripheral doctrine but as a fundamental aspect of His nature, woven throughout both testaments in clear, unambiguous language.

The Clarity of Scripture on God’s Complete Knowledge

The biblical testimony to God’s omniscience is overwhelming and explicit. Consider these foundational passages that Dake must explain away or reinterpret to maintain his position:

Isaiah 46:9-10 declares with stunning clarity: “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” This passage doesn’t merely say God is very knowledgeable or that He has a good plan—it declares that God knows and declares future events with absolute certainty because He knows all things.

Psalm 147:5 removes any limitation on God’s understanding: “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.” The Hebrew word translated “infinite” means without measure or limit. There is no qualification here, no suggestion that God’s understanding, while vast, has boundaries. It is literally immeasurable.

1 John 3:20 provides New Testament confirmation: “For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.” The phrase “knoweth all things” uses the Greek word panta (all things) with the verb ginosko (to know). John doesn’t say God knows “most things” or “many things” but “all things” without exception.

Psalm 139:1-6 presents perhaps the most personal and comprehensive description of God’s omniscience in Scripture. David writes: “O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.”

Notice the comprehensiveness of God’s knowledge in this passage: He knows our actions (“downsitting and mine uprising”), our thoughts before we think them (“thou understandest my thought afar off”), our daily routines (“my path and my lying down”), our words before we speak them (“there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether”). This isn’t the description of a God who learns or discovers but One whose knowledge is perfect, complete, and eternal.

The Theological Necessity of Omniscience

God’s omniscience isn’t merely one attribute among many; it’s essential to His very nature as God. Without complete knowledge, God cannot be:

Truly Sovereign: How can God rule over all things if He doesn’t know all things? Sovereignty requires comprehensive knowledge. A ruler who doesn’t know what’s happening in his realm cannot effectively govern it. If God is learning and discovering, then His sovereignty is reactive rather than absolute.

Perfectly Just: Justice requires complete knowledge of all facts, motives, and circumstances. Human justice fails because human judges lack complete knowledge. If God’s knowledge is limited, His justice could be flawed. He might punish the innocent or acquit the guilty based on incomplete information.

Completely Trustworthy: We trust God’s promises because He knows all possible futures and can guarantee specific outcomes. If God is learning as He goes, His promises become hopes rather than certainties. He might promise something He later discovers He cannot deliver.

The Source of Prophecy: Biblical prophecy depends entirely on God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. The hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in Scripture demonstrate God’s complete knowledge of future events. If God doesn’t know the future exhaustively, prophecy becomes educated guessing rather than divine revelation.

Dake’s Direct Attacks on Omniscience

While Dake occasionally affirms that God is omniscient, his actual teaching consistently undermines this affirmation. Like someone who says “I believe in marriage” while promoting adultery, Dake claims to believe in God’s omniscience while teaching doctrines that destroy it. Let’s examine his actual statements and their implications.

Dake’s Redefinition of Omniscience

Perhaps the most telling evidence of Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge appears in his systematic theology section where he defines divine omniscience. In a revealing passage, Dake writes: “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).”¹

This statement reveals the core of Dake’s heresy. Notice the qualification: God is omniscient “as far as His nature, plan, and work are concerned”—but when it comes to free moral agents, “God learns certain things about them.” This is not orthodox omniscience. This is a limited deity who knows some things but must investigate and learn about others. Dake continues: “God sends messengers on innumerable duties to help Him carry on His rulership of all things (Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Mt. 18:10-11; Heb. 1:14). He permits free moral agents freedom of action as to their conduct and destiny.”²

Here Dake presents a God who needs angelic messengers to “help Him carry on His rulership”—as if God requires intelligence reports from His scouts to know what is happening in His creation. This is not the omniscient God of Scripture but a cosmic administrator dependent on others for information.

In his more extended theological notes, Dake makes his position even clearer: “The question of the omniscience of God is also much misunderstood. The Bible makes many simple statements that limit God’s knowledge. There would be no sense to such passages if we do not believe them literally. There is no meaning to them if we take them figuratively. There was no object in God saying such things about Himself if they were untrue. God gets to know things concerning the free moral actions of men as others do.”¹¹

The “God Discovers” Heresy

Throughout his annotated Bible, Dake repeatedly presents God as discovering information He didn’t previously know. This isn’t a matter of anthropomorphic language (God described in human terms for our understanding) but Dake’s literal belief that God learns new information. Consider these examples from his own notes:

Commenting on Genesis 18:21, where God says He will “go down” to see if Sodom and Gomorrah have done according to the outcry that has come to Him, Dake writes in his Bible notes:

Dake makes his position even clearer in another note on the same passage: “Here we have another proof that God receives knowledge of true conditions and becomes acquainted with existing facts.”³ He further explains: “The purpose of this earthly visit of God and the 2 angels was to see if Sodom was as wicked as God’s scouts had reported to Him (v 20-21).”⁴

This interpretation is shocking in its implications. Dake literally believes that God receives reports (from whom? angels?) and must investigate to verify their accuracy. This reduces God to a cosmic administrator who depends on others for information and must conduct investigations to learn the truth. This is not the God of the Bible but a limited being who resembles a celestial FBI director more than the omniscient Creator.

In his comprehensive work “God’s Plan for Man,” Dake elaborates on this theme with even more explicit statements: “God sends messengers throughout the whole of His vast creations to find out for Him what He wants to know, the same as the head of any other business would be likely to do, so that plans may be made and actions taken accordingly. Examples of such agency constantly reporting to God can be found in Gen. 18:21-22; Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Matt. 18:10-11; Heb. 1:14; 2:2; Rev. 1:1; 7:1-3; 8:2-13; 9:1; 14:6-20; 15:1-8; 16:1-21; 18:21; 22:6, 8-9, 16.”¹²

The orthodox understanding of Genesis 18:21 recognizes this as anthropomorphic language—God condescending to express Himself in human terms for Abraham’s benefit. God already knew Sodom’s wickedness perfectly; His “going down to see” was a judicial proceeding for Abraham’s education and for the historical record, demonstrating God’s justice in not destroying cities without clear cause. As Calvin correctly noted, God accommodates Himself to our capacity, speaking as a human would speak so we can understand divine actions.

The “God Learns from Experience” Teaching

Even more troubling is Dake’s teaching that God learns from experience and gains knowledge over time. In his systematic notes on Genesis 6, Dake makes this astounding claim about God’s knowledge: “Divine inspection and dissatisfaction. God learns true conditions the same as man (v 5-6; 7:1; 11:5; 18:21; 22:12; 29:31; Ex. 3:4; Dt. 32:19; 2 Ki. 14:26; 2 Chr. 12:7; Isa. 59:15-16; Jonah 3:10).”⁵

Read that again carefully: “God learns true conditions the same as man.” Dake is not speaking metaphorically. He literally believes that God discovers information through investigation just as human beings do. This teaching places God on the same epistemological level as His creatures—merely more knowledgeable, but not omniscient.

In his note on Genesis 22:12, where the angel of the Lord says to Abraham, “Now I know that thou fearest God,” Dake makes this astounding claim:

This statement reveals the depth of Dake’s departure from orthodox theology. He explicitly denies that God knows “future free acts of free moral agents” until they occur. This position, known as “open theism” in modern theology, wasn’t even considered a Christian option throughout church history—it was recognized as pagan philosophy incompatible with biblical revelation.

Dake reinforces this teaching repeatedly throughout his works. In “God’s Plan for Man,” he states categorically: “God did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked (Gen. 6:5-7); that they would plan Babel (Gen. 11:5-7); that Sodom would be so wicked (Gen. 18:21, 26, 28-32); that Abraham would actually proceed to offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:12). God did not know whether it would take one or two or three signs to make Israel believe in Him (Ex. 4:1-12); or whether testing Israel would cause them to obey Him, or not (Dt. 8:2, 16).”¹³

Consider the logical problems with Dake’s position:

First, if God doesn’t know future free choices, then He cannot know the future at all, since the future is largely shaped by human decisions. Every human choice creates ripple effects that influence countless future events. If God doesn’t know these choices in advance, His knowledge of the future becomes increasingly uncertain the further out we look.

Second, this teaching makes biblical prophecy impossible. How could God predict that Judas would betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver if He didn’t know Judas’s future free choice? How could He foretell Peter’s three denials if Peter’s choices were unknown to Him? The specific, detailed prophecies throughout Scripture become inexplicable if God doesn’t know future free choices.

Third, this limitation on God’s knowledge destroys the doctrine of providence. If God doesn’t know what people will choose, He cannot guarantee His plans will succeed. He becomes a chess player making moves without knowing how His opponent will respond—skilled perhaps, but not omniscient, and certainly not able to guarantee victory.

Dake makes his comprehensive denial of foreknowledge even more explicit: “Such facts and many others make it clear that God does not know from all eternity what any one man will do, much less what different types and dispositions of men will do under various circumstances that are not yet present to deal with. We have no statement in the entire Bible saying that God knows or even would like to know all acts and particular events of all vast creations of free moral agents from all eternity past; or that He has fixed decrees choosing and predestinating all the thoughts, acts, and deeds of free wills from all eternity past to all eternity future.”¹⁴

The “God Repents and Changes His Mind” Error

Dake’s hyperliteral interpretation leads him to believe that God actually changes His mind based on new information or unexpected developments. When the Bible speaks of God “repenting” or “changing His mind,” Dake takes this as literal truth rather than anthropomorphic language. In his note on Genesis 6:6, where it says “it repented the LORD that he had made man,” Dake provides this revealing explanation of the Hebrew word nacham: “Heb. nacham, to sigh, breathe heavily, and be sorry in the literal sense (Ex. 32:14; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16; Ps. 106:45).”⁶

Dake insists on taking this in “the literal sense,” and further explains: “God is capable of all feelings, emotions, and right desires as we are.”⁷ In his fuller note on this passage, Dake writes:

According to Dake, God “hoped for better things but was disappointed.” This presents God as having optimistic expectations that were crushed by reality—hardly the picture of an omniscient being who knows the end from the beginning. If God genuinely hoped for something that didn’t occur, then He didn’t know what would occur. His hope was based on incomplete knowledge.

The biblical truth is that God’s “repentance” is an anthropomorphism—a description of God’s actions in human terms to help us understand divine response to human behavior. God’s eternal decree includes both human sin and His response to it. From our perspective in time, it appears that God changes His mind, but from God’s eternal perspective, everything unfolds according to His perfect knowledge and plan.

Numbers 23:19 explicitly denies that God changes His mind like humans do: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” This verse directly contradicts Dake’s interpretation, yet Dake must explain it away to maintain his position.

Dake’s Attack on Psalm 139 and God’s Searching

Perhaps nowhere is Dake’s assault on omniscience more brazen than in his treatment of Psalm 139, which orthodox Christianity has always understood as one of the clearest biblical affirmations of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. Dake attempts to reinterpret this passage to support his limitation of divine knowledge. In an extended note on Psalm 139, Dake makes this remarkable claim:

This is an astonishing statement. Dake dismisses as “extreme concepts” what the church has always believed—that God knows all future events, including free human choices. He insists these teachings “are not even hinted at in Scripture,” despite the overwhelming biblical testimony to the contrary.

Dake then asks a rhetorical question meant to support his position: “What is the object of searching man to know him if this is already an automatic knowledge of God from eternity past, even billions of years before man came into existence?”⁹ He elaborates:

Dake’s argument is that God’s “searching” must mean He didn’t know beforehand what He would find. This completely misunderstands the nature of biblical language and the purpose of divine searching. Orthodox theology has always understood God’s searching not as investigation to gain knowledge but as judicial examination to demonstrate righteousness. When God searches hearts, He’s not learning what’s there—He’s bringing to light what He has always known for the purposes of judgment or vindication.

In yet another passage from “God’s Plan for Man,” Dake adds: “Furthermore, He searches to find men whom He can bless (2 Chr. 16:9); He discovers deep things (Job 12:22); tries the hearts and reins of men so that He may know them (Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6, 23-24; Jer. 17:10; 1 Chr. 28:9; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 2:10; Rev. 2:23), proving all men for the same reason (Ps. 17:3; 66:10; 81:7).”¹⁵

The Problem of Prayer in Dake’s System

Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge creates massive problems for the doctrine of prayer. Jesus taught that “your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him” (Matthew 6:8). This statement assumes God’s complete foreknowledge—He knows what we need before we ask because He knows the future exhaustively.

But in Dake’s system, God cannot know what we need before we ask if our needs depend on future free choices (ours or others). God might know we need food today, but can He know we’ll need healing tomorrow if He doesn’t know whether someone will choose to drive drunk and hit us with their car? Can He know we’ll need financial provision next month if He doesn’t know whether our employer will choose to lay us off?

In his note on Matthew 6:8, Dake attempts to reconcile this problem:

This explanation guts Jesus’ statement of its meaning. If God only knows our present needs and can make educated guesses about future needs, then He doesn’t really know what we need “before we ask”—He’s learning along with us. This transforms prayer from communication with an omniscient Father into updates for a well-meaning but partially-informed deity.

The Theological Consequences of Denying Omniscience

Dake’s attack on God’s omniscience doesn’t exist in isolation—it creates a domino effect that topples numerous essential Christian doctrines. Once we accept that God doesn’t know everything, the implications ripple through every area of theology with devastating consequences.

The Destruction of Biblical Inerrancy

If God doesn’t know future free choices, then the Bible cannot be inerrant in its predictions about the future. Every prophecy that involves human decisions becomes a divine guess rather than certain knowledge. Consider how this affects specific biblical prophecies:

The Prophecy of Cyrus: Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 name Cyrus as the king who would release Israel from Babylonian captivity—written about 150 years before Cyrus was born. If God didn’t know the future free choices of Cyrus’s parents to name him, of Cyrus himself to become king, and of his decision to release the Jews, then this prophecy was either a lucky guess or God somehow forced these events to occur, violating human freedom.

Peter’s Denial: Jesus predicted that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed (Matthew 26:34). This involved multiple free choices: Peter’s choice to follow at a distance, the servants’ choices to question him, Peter’s three separate decisions to deny Christ, and even the rooster’s “choice” to crow at the right time. If God doesn’t know future free choices, this precise prediction becomes impossible.

Judas’s Betrayal: The Old Testament predicted the Messiah would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13). Jesus identified Judas as the betrayer before he acted (John 13:26). If God didn’t know Judas’s future free choice to betray Christ, these prophecies were meaningless.

In Dake’s system, we cannot trust any biblical prophecy that hasn’t already been fulfilled, because God Himself doesn’t know if it will come to pass as predicted. This undermines the authority and reliability of Scripture itself.

The Collapse of Divine Providence

Providence—God’s governance and care for His creation—depends entirely on His omniscience. If God doesn’t know the future exhaustively, He cannot promise to work all things together for good (Romans 8:28) because He doesn’t know what “all things” will include. He can only promise to do His best with whatever happens, making Him a reactive rather than proactive God.

Consider Joseph’s statement to his brothers: “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Genesis 50:20). This declaration assumes God knew the brothers would sell Joseph, knew the famine would come, knew Joseph would interpret Pharaoh’s dreams, and orchestrated all these events for a greater purpose. In Dake’s theology, God couldn’t have meant it for good because He didn’t know it would happen until the brothers made their free choice to sell Joseph.

Dake addresses this problem in his note on Romans 8:28:

Notice how Dake changes “all things work together for good” into “God tries to bring good out of whatever happens.” This isn’t the same promise at all. Paul’s assurance becomes God’s aspiration. The solid rock of God’s providence becomes the shifting sand of divine improvisation.

The Impossibility of Salvation Assurance

Perhaps nowhere is Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge more destructive than in the doctrine of salvation. Jesus promised, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:39). This promise assumes Christ knows who has been given to Him and that He can guarantee their final salvation.

But if God doesn’t know future free choices, He cannot know:

• Who will eventually choose to believe
• Whether current believers will persevere or fall away
• Whether He can keep His promise not to lose any
• Who will actually be raised on the last day

The doctrine of eternal security becomes meaningless if God doesn’t know whether believers will continue to believe. The doctrine of election becomes impossible if God doesn’t know who will choose Him. Even the simple promise “he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” (John 3:36) becomes uncertain if God doesn’t know who will believe tomorrow or whether today’s believers will still believe next week.

In his note on John 6:39, Dake writes:

Again, Dake transforms a divine promise into a divine hope. Christ’s assurance that He will lose nothing becomes a hope that people won’t choose to be lost. This isn’t the gospel of security but the anxiety of uncertainty.

The Problem of Evil Intensified

The problem of evil—why an all-good, all-powerful God allows suffering—becomes even more acute if God doesn’t have exhaustive foreknowledge. In orthodox theology, God permits evil while knowing exactly how He will use it for greater good and ultimate glory. He knows the end from the beginning and allows only what serves His perfect purposes.

But in Dake’s theology, God allows evil without knowing what will result. He doesn’t know whether today’s permitted suffering will lead to tomorrow’s greater good or simply to more suffering. He’s experimenting with human pain, hoping for good outcomes but unable to guarantee them.

Consider the implications for specific biblical examples:

Job’s Suffering: God permitted Satan to afflict Job, knowing the outcome would vindicate Job’s faith and result in greater blessing. But if God didn’t know Job’s future free choices, He was gambling with Job’s life, hoping Job would remain faithful but unable to know for certain.

The Cross: God permitted the greatest evil—the crucifixion of His Son—knowing it would accomplish redemption. But if God didn’t know whether anyone would believe the gospel, He allowed Christ’s suffering without knowing if it would save anyone.

Persecution: God allows His people to suffer persecution, promising it will result in glory. But if He doesn’t know how they’ll respond, He’s allowing suffering that might produce apostasy rather than glory.

Dake’s Mishandling of Biblical Texts

To maintain his position, Dake must explain away or reinterpret dozens of clear biblical passages that affirm God’s exhaustive knowledge. His handling of these texts reveals the desperation of his position and the violence he does to Scripture to maintain his errors. Let’s examine how he deals with some key passages.

The Isaiah 46:10 Problem

Isaiah 46:10 presents an insurmountable problem for Dake’s theology: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” This verse explicitly states that God declares things “not yet done” from ancient times—clear evidence of exhaustive foreknowledge.

Dake’s attempt to explain this passage in his Bible notes is telling:

This explanation evacuates the passage of its meaning. If God only knows His own purposes but not how humans will choose, then He cannot actually declare “the end from the beginning” because the end depends on countless human choices. He can only declare His intentions, not the actual end. This makes God a powerful but partially blind architect, designing buildings without knowing if the workers will follow His blueprints.

The Psalm 139 Dilemma

Psalm 139 presents perhaps the clearest biblical picture of God’s exhaustive knowledge, including knowledge of future free choices. David declares that God knows his words before he speaks them (v. 4) and has ordained all his days before one of them existed (v. 16). These statements are incompatible with Dake’s theology.

Dake’s handling of Psalm 139:16, which says “in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them,” is particularly revealing:

This interpretation violently restricts the passage’s meaning. The context isn’t limited to biological development but encompasses God’s comprehensive knowledge of David’s entire existence. The phrase “all my members” in context refers to all of David’s days (as many translations render it), not just his physical body parts. Dake must reduce this to mere embryology to avoid its clear teaching of divine foreknowledge.

The 1 John 3:20 Contradiction

First John 3:20 states simply and categorically that God “knoweth all things.” The Greek construction is straightforward and absolute. There are no qualifications, no limitations, no exceptions. God knows panta—all things.

Dake’s note on this verse exposes his theological gymnastics:

This is philosophical sophistry, not biblical exegesis. Dake invents a category of “things that are knowable” to limit “all things.” He claims future free choices aren’t “things” until they happen—a distinction found nowhere in Scripture. The Bible consistently presents God as knowing future choices as certainly as past events. David’s future words were “things” God knew (Psalm 139:4). Peter’s future denial was a “thing” Christ knew (Matthew 26:34). Judas’s future betrayal was a “thing” known from ancient times (Zechariah 11:12-13; Acts 1:16).

The Mark 13:32 Misuse

One passage Dake frequently cites to support his limitation of God’s knowledge is Mark 13:32: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Dake argues this proves even Christ has limited knowledge, supporting his view that limitation of knowledge is compatible with deity.

In his note on Mark 13:32, Dake writes:

This interpretation reveals multiple errors in Dake’s theology. First, it misunderstands the incarnation. Orthodox theology has always understood this limitation as pertaining to Christ’s human nature during His earthly ministry, not to His divine nature. As the God-man, Christ voluntarily limited the use of certain divine attributes while retaining His divine nature fully.

Second, Dake uses this to support his tritheistic view that Father and Son are separate Gods with separate knowledge. This destroys the unity of the Godhead and makes Christianity polytheistic.

Third, even if this verse showed the Son’s knowledge was limited during His earthly ministry, it explicitly states the Father knows that day and hour. It doesn’t support Dake’s view that God the Father has limited knowledge—quite the opposite.

In “God’s Plan for Man,” Dake extends this argument about Christ’s limitations: “The limitations of Christ in knowledge and wisdom cannot be explained and harmonized with the fact that Christ had omniscience. His limitations in power and His powerlessness to act and do things in Himself cannot be harmonized with the fact that He had his original attribute of omnipotence.”¹⁶

The Historical Witness Against Dake

Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge places him outside the stream of historic Christian orthodoxy. For two thousand years, the church has unanimously affirmed God’s exhaustive omniscience. Every major creed, confession, and theological tradition—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—has recognized that a God who doesn’t know everything isn’t the God of the Bible.

The Testimony of the Early Church

The early church fathers unanimously affirmed God’s complete foreknowledge. They recognized this as essential to Christian faith and a key distinction between the God of the Bible and pagan deities.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) wrote extensively on God’s foreknowledge, stating: “God’s knowledge cannot be called foreknowledge as if it were different from His knowledge of present things. To God all things are present; nothing is past, nothing is future. He sees all things in a single, eternal moment.” Augustine recognized that limiting God’s knowledge of the future would destroy His perfection.

John Chrysostom (349-407 AD) proclaimed: “God knows all things before they come to pass, and nothing happens which He has not foreseen. His knowledge is not increased by the event, nor was it less before the event occurred.” This clear affirmation stands in direct opposition to Dake’s teaching that God learns as events unfold.

Origen (185-254 AD) defended God’s foreknowledge against pagan philosophers who argued that foreknowledge eliminated free will: “God’s foreknowledge does not impose necessity on future events. He knows what free creatures will freely choose, but His knowledge doesn’t cause their choices.” This sophisticated understanding shows the early church grappled with these issues and maintained both divine omniscience and human responsibility.

The Reformation’s Clear Voice

The Protestant Reformers, despite their differences on many issues, unanimously affirmed God’s exhaustive omniscience as fundamental to biblical faith.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote in “The Bondage of the Will”: “God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. This bombshell knocks free will flat and utterly destroys it.” While Luther’s view of predestination was controversial, his affirmation of God’s complete foreknowledge was considered basic Christianity.

John Calvin (1509-1564) stated in his Institutes: “When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things were ever present to Him and remain so to His sight; that to His knowledge nothing is future or past, but all things are present… He sees and contemplates them as if actually placed before Him.” Calvin recognized that denying God’s exhaustive foreknowledge would undermine His deity.

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), often cited by those who emphasize free will, nevertheless strongly affirmed God’s complete foreknowledge: “God knows all things possible, whether they exist or not, from all eternity. Nothing can be concealed from His infinite knowledge. This knowledge extends to all future contingencies, including the free actions of rational creatures.” Even Arminius, who disagreed with Calvin on predestination, agreed completely on God’s omniscience.

The Creeds and Confessions Speak

Every major Christian creed and confession affirms God’s omniscience without limitation:

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) declares: “God’s knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain. He knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions.”

The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) states: “God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.”

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) affirms: “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, including what it states about God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and sovereign control over all things.”

These statements represent not denominational peculiarities but the common faith of all orthodox Christians. Dake’s departure from this unanimous testimony places him outside the boundaries of historic Christianity.

The Pagan Roots of Dake’s Teaching

Where does Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge come from if not from Scripture or Christian tradition? The answer is revealing: his view closely resembles pagan philosophy and non-Christian religious thought. By limiting God’s knowledge, Dake unwittingly adopts ideas that Christianity has always rejected as incompatible with biblical revelation.

The Greek Philosophical Connection

Aristotle taught that God (the “Unmoved Mover”) could not know contingent futures because they don’t yet exist to be known. This limitation wasn’t seen as a defect but as a logical necessity—you cannot know what doesn’t exist. Dake’s argument that “future free choices are not things until they happen” echoes this Aristotelian philosophy almost exactly.

The Stoics believed in fate but denied comprehensive divine foreknowledge of free choices. Their gods were powerful but not omniscient in the absolute sense. They could predict likely outcomes based on character and circumstances but couldn’t know with certainty what free agents would choose. This sounds remarkably like Dake’s God who “anticipates likely future needs based on present conditions.”

Epicurean philosophy denied divine foreknowledge entirely, arguing that gods who knew the future would be burdened with anxiety about coming evils. While Dake doesn’t go this far, his God who “hopes for better things but is disappointed” bears uncomfortable similarity to the anxious deities of Epicureanism.

The Process Theology Parallel

Dake’s views remarkably parallel process theology, a 20th-century movement that explicitly denies God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. Process theologians argue that God is “in process”—growing, learning, and developing along with creation. Compare these process theology statements with Dake’s teaching:

Process Theology: “God knows all that is knowable, but future free decisions are not knowable until they occur.”
Dake: “God knows all that is knowable but the future free acts of free moral agents are not knowable until they make their choices.”

Process Theology: “God experiences genuine surprise and disappointment when creatures choose differently than He hoped.”
Dake: “God had hoped for better things but was disappointed.”

Process Theology: “God learns from the ongoing experiences of the world.”
Dake: “God learns the decisions of men as they make them.”

The similarity is not coincidental. Both systems start with the same philosophical assumption—that exhaustive foreknowledge is incompatible with genuine freedom—and reach the same conclusion—that God’s knowledge must be limited. Both systems subordinate biblical revelation to philosophical reasoning.

The Mormon Connection

Perhaps most disturbing is the similarity between Dake’s theology and Mormon teaching about God. Mormonism teaches that God progressed to His current state and continues to progress in knowledge and power. While Dake doesn’t explicitly teach divine progression, his God who learns and discovers new information bears uncomfortable resemblance to the Mormon deity.

Consider this statement from Mormon theology: “God’s foreknowledge is not absolute. He knows all that can be known, but the future free choices of His children remain open until they are made.” This could have been written by Dake himself. The limitation of divine knowledge is a hallmark of heretical movements that deny the biblical God’s absolute perfection.

The Practical Devastation of Dake’s Teaching

Theology is never merely academic. What we believe about God profoundly affects how we live, pray, worship, and face life’s challenges. Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge has devastating practical consequences for Christian life and faith.

Prayer Becomes Problematic

If God doesn’t know the future exhaustively, prayer becomes an exercise in uncertainty rather than confident petition to an all-knowing Father. Consider how this affects specific aspects of prayer:

Praying for Future Events: When we pray for safety on tomorrow’s journey, we assume God knows what dangers we might face and can protect us from them. But if God doesn’t know what choices other drivers will make, He cannot guarantee our safety. He can only promise to do His best with whatever happens.

Praying for Others: When we pray for a loved one’s salvation, we trust that God knows how to reach their heart and what circumstances will draw them to Christ. But if God doesn’t know their future choices, He’s experimenting with different approaches, hoping something will work but unable to know what will succeed.

Praying for Guidance: When we seek God’s guidance for major decisions, we trust He knows what lies ahead on each possible path. But if God doesn’t know future contingencies, His guidance is based on incomplete information. He might direct us onto a path that seems good based on current conditions but leads to unforeseen disaster due to future free choices He couldn’t anticipate.

A believer influenced by Dake’s teaching shared this testimony:

Worship Loses Its Foundation

We worship God because He is perfect in all His attributes. His infinite knowledge is part of what makes Him worthy of absolute worship. But Dake’s God, who learns and discovers, who hopes and is disappointed, who investigates to find out truth, is not infinitely perfect. He’s simply a very powerful being who knows more than we do but not everything.

The psalms repeatedly call us to worship God specifically because of His omniscience:

“Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable” (Psalm 145:3). But if God’s knowledge is limited, His greatness is searchable—we’ve found its boundaries.

“O 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). But if God is learning as He goes, His knowledge isn’t unsearchable—it’s growing and developing like ours, just from a higher starting point.

A pastor who formerly used the Dake Bible reported:

Suffering Becomes Meaningless

Christians have always found comfort in suffering by trusting that God knows exactly what He’s doing and why He’s allowing our pain. Romans 8:28 assures us that God works all things together for good. This promise assumes God knows how today’s suffering will contribute to tomorrow’s glory.

But in Dake’s theology, God allows suffering without knowing what will result. He permits cancer without knowing if it will lead to spiritual growth or spiritual collapse. He allows persecution without knowing if it will strengthen faith or destroy it. He permits tragedy without knowing if good will come from it or only more evil.

Consider how this affects specific situations:

Parents of a disabled child can no longer trust that God knew this child would be disabled and has a perfect purpose for it. Instead, God was surprised by the genetic mutation or accident that caused the disability and is now trying to make the best of an unexpected situation.

A believer facing terminal illness cannot rest in God’s perfect knowledge and timing. God didn’t know this disease was coming and is now scrambling to respond to an unforeseen development. Death might come before God accomplishes what He hoped to achieve.

A missionary imprisoned for faith cannot trust that God knew this would happen and has a purpose in it. God hoped the mission work would succeed but didn’t foresee the government’s free choice to persecute Christians. Now He’s trying to salvage some good from an unexpected setback.

A counselor shared this observation:

Evangelism Loses Its Confidence

The Great Commission assumes God knows who will respond to the gospel and has orchestrated circumstances to bring about their salvation. We evangelize with confidence because God is working to draw people to Himself according to His perfect knowledge and plan.

But if God doesn’t know who will believe, evangelism becomes a shot in the dark for both us and God. He doesn’t know if anyone will respond to our witness. He can’t orchestrate circumstances to prepare hearts because He doesn’t know how hearts will respond. Every gospel presentation is an experiment with unknown results.

This uncertainty undermines evangelistic confidence and urgency. Why share the gospel today if God doesn’t know whether today or tomorrow is the right time? Why pray for specific individuals’ salvation if God doesn’t know how to reach them effectively?

Answering Dake’s Objections

Dake raises several objections to the orthodox doctrine of divine omniscience, attempting to defend his position with logical and biblical arguments. Each of these objections has been answered thoroughly throughout church history, but Dake either ignored or was unaware of these responses. Let’s examine and refute his main arguments.

Objection 1: “Omniscience Destroys Free Will”

Dake’s primary argument against exhaustive divine foreknowledge is that it eliminates human freedom. In his notes on various passages, he repeatedly argues that if God knows what we will choose, we cannot choose otherwise, and therefore we are not truly free. This is why he insists that “future free acts of free moral agents are not knowable until they make their choices.”

The Answer: This objection confuses certainty with necessity. God’s knowing that something will happen doesn’t cause it to happen or make it necessary. Consider a simple analogy: A history teacher knows that George Washington crossed the Delaware on December 25, 1776. This knowledge doesn’t cause Washington’s crossing or eliminate his free choice to cross. The teacher’s knowledge is after the fact from her temporal perspective.

Now, God’s knowledge is eternal, not temporal. From His perspective outside of time, all events are eternally present. He doesn’t foresee the future; He sees it as an eternal present. His knowledge no more causes our choices than our memory of yesterday’s choices caused them. The fact that an event is certain to God doesn’t make it necessary for us.

Furthermore, the Bible consistently affirms both God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and human responsibility. Joseph’s brothers freely chose to sell him into slavery, yet God meant it for good (Genesis 50:20). Judas freely chose to betray Christ, yet it was prophesied centuries earlier (Zechariah 11:12-13). The men who crucified Christ acted according to their own wicked desires, yet they did “whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:27-28).

Scripture never resolves this tension by limiting either God’s knowledge or human responsibility. It affirms both fully, even if we cannot comprehend how they work together. Dake’s solution—denying God’s exhaustive foreknowledge—solves the philosophical problem by contradicting Scripture.

Objection 2: “Biblical Language Proves God Learns”

Dake points to numerous biblical passages that speak of God “repenting,” “coming down to see,” “testing to know,” and similar expressions as proof that God gains knowledge over time. He argues we should take these passages literally rather than explaining them away.

The Answer: This objection fails to recognize the nature of anthropomorphic language in Scripture. The Bible frequently describes God in human terms to help us understand divine actions, but it also makes clear that God is not literally like humans. Consider:

The Bible speaks of God’s “eyes” (2 Chronicles 16:9), “hands” (Isaiah 59:1), “feet” (Nahum 1:3), and “wings” (Psalm 91:4). If we interpret all these literally, as Dake’s method requires, God becomes a physical creature with body parts—including wings! This contradicts Jesus’ statement that “God is spirit” (John 4:24).

The Bible also uses obviously figurative language about God. He is called a “rock” (Psalm 18:2), a “fortress” (Psalm 91:2), a “consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29), and a “sun and shield” (Psalm 84:11). Literal interpretation would make God a geological formation, a building, a chemical reaction, and an astronomical body simultaneously.

The key is letting Scripture interpret Scripture. When the Bible says God “repents” or “changes His mind,” we must interpret these passages in light of clear statements that “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent” (Numbers 23:19). When it speaks of God “coming down to see,” we interpret this in light of affirmations that God knows all things and is present everywhere.

These anthropomorphic expressions describe God’s actions in terms we can understand, not limitations in His knowledge. When God “comes down to see” Sodom’s wickedness, He’s not learning new information but demonstrating the judicial basis for His judgment. When He “tests” Abraham, He’s not discovering Abraham’s faith but revealing it for Abraham’s benefit and our instruction.

Objection 3: “Some Things Cannot Be Known”

Dake argues that some things are inherently unknowable, even to God. Future free choices, he claims, don’t exist to be known. They are not “things” until they happen. This is why he can say God “knows all that is knowable” while denying He knows everything.

The Answer: This objection imposes human philosophical categories on God rather than accepting biblical revelation. Who decides what is “knowable” to an infinite God? Dake? Aristotle? Human logic?

The Bible never suggests there are things inherently unknowable to God. Instead, it repeatedly affirms that nothing is hidden from Him:

“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). Note: “all things,” not “all knowable things.”

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). God knows all His works—including those not yet performed—from the beginning.

“The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works” (Psalm 33:13-15). God considers “all their works,” including future ones.

Furthermore, if future free choices were unknowable, prophecy would be impossible. Yet Scripture is filled with detailed prophecies of future human choices. God knew Pharaoh would harden his heart (Exodus 3:19). He knew Cyrus would release the exiles (Isaiah 44:28). He knew Judas would betray Christ (Zechariah 11:12-13). Either these weren’t free choices, or God can know future free choices. Scripture affirms both human freedom and divine foreknowledge of these events.

Objection 4: “Christ’s Limited Knowledge Proves the Point”

Dake frequently cites Mark 13:32, where Christ says He doesn’t know the day or hour of His return, as proof that even deity can have limited knowledge. If the Son doesn’t know everything, Dake argues, then limited knowledge is compatible with being divine.

The Answer: This objection misunderstands the incarnation and actually undermines Dake’s position. Orthodox Christianity has always understood Christ’s limitation of knowledge as pertaining to His human nature during His state of humiliation. As the Westminster Confession states, Christ has “two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, forever inseparably joined together in one person.”

In His divine nature, Christ knows all things. In His human nature, during His earthly ministry, He voluntarily limited the use of divine attributes. This is part of what Paul calls Christ “emptying Himself” (Philippians 2:7). He didn’t cease to be God but chose not to access or use all divine prerogatives during His incarnate state.

Ironically, Mark 13:32 actually refutes Dake’s position. The verse says the Father knows the day and hour. If Dake were correct that future events involving free choices cannot be known, then the Father couldn’t know the timing of the Second Coming either, since it involves countless human choices. The fact that the Father knows proves that exhaustive foreknowledge is possible and actual.

The Deeper Deception: Redefining Omniscience

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of Dake’s teaching is his redefinition of theological terms while continuing to use them. He claims to believe in God’s “omniscience” but redefines it to mean something far less than what Christians have always meant by the term. This allows him to sound orthodox while teaching heresy.

The Verbal Sleight of Hand

Throughout his writings, Dake employs a deceptive pattern:

Step 1: Affirm the orthodox term (“God is omniscient”)
Step 2: Redefine it subtly (“knowing all that is knowable”)
Step 3: Empty it of meaning (“future free acts are not knowable”)
Step 4: Claim orthodoxy while teaching heresy

This pattern appears repeatedly in his Bible notes. For example, in his note on Psalm 147:5 (“his understanding is infinite”), Dake writes:

Notice the redefinition. “Infinite” no longer means “without limit” but “without limit except for the limits I’m about to impose.” This is like saying “I have infinite money, except for the money I don’t have.” The term becomes meaningless.

This redefinition strategy allows Dake’s followers to claim they believe in God’s omniscience while actually denying it. They can sound orthodox in conversation while holding thoroughly heterodox views. This makes his teaching particularly dangerous—it flies under the radar of those who hear the right terms without recognizing the wrong definitions.

The Academic Smokescreen

Dake often uses scholarly-sounding language and philosophical distinctions to make his limitations on God’s knowledge seem sophisticated rather than heretical. He speaks of “categories of existence,” “potential versus actual knowledge,” “contingent futures,” and similar terms that give an impression of deep learning.

But this academic smokescreen cannot hide the fundamental problem: Dake is teaching that God doesn’t know everything. No amount of philosophical jargon changes this basic denial of biblical truth. The farmer who believes God knows all things has better theology than the scholar who limits divine knowledge with sophisticated arguments.

Consider how Dake handles the concept of divine foreknowledge in his systematic theology notes:

This sounds impressively theological, but it’s simply a sophisticated way of saying God doesn’t know the future exhaustively. The categories and distinctions are human inventions imposed on Scripture, not derived from it. The Bible knows nothing of “contingent foreknowledge” or “limited foreknowledge”—it simply declares that God knows all things.

The Connection to Dake’s Other Errors

Dake’s denial of God’s omniscience doesn’t exist in isolation—it connects to and reinforces his other theological errors. Once God’s knowledge is limited, other limitations naturally follow. The denial of one divine perfection leads inevitably to the denial of others.

The Link to Divine Corporeality

Dake’s teaching that God has a physical body connects directly to his limitation of divine knowledge. A physical being, existing in space and time, cannot know all things simultaneously. Physical eyes can only see from one location. Physical ears can only hear sounds within range. A physical brain, no matter how powerful, processes information sequentially, not eternally.

This is why Dake must limit God’s knowledge—his physical God cannot be omniscient. In his note on Jeremiah 23:24 (“Do not I fill heaven and earth?”), Dake writes:

Notice how physical limitation leads to knowledge limitation. God knows what happens on earth “through observation and reports from angels.” He’s not omnisciently aware of all things but learns through investigation and intermediaries. The physical body Dake gives God necessarily limits His knowledge.

The Link to Tritheism

Dake’s doctrine of three separate Gods requires three separate centers of knowledge. If Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct beings rather than one God in three persons, they must have three separate minds with potentially different knowledge. This is why Dake can claim the Father knows things the Son doesn’t know—they’re separate beings with separate knowledge bases.

This multiplication of divine minds creates massive problems for omniscience. Do all three Gods know everything, or does each know different things? If they all know everything, how are they distinct? If they know different things, none of them is omniscient. Dake never resolves this dilemma, leaving his followers with three limited Gods rather than one omniscient God.

The Link to Racial Division

Less obvious but equally real is the connection between Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge and his racial teachings. If God didn’t foresee the development of different races and their interactions, He couldn’t have planned for their unity in Christ. The racial divisions Dake promotes become fixed features of creation rather than results of sin to be overcome by redemption.

A God who learns as history unfolds might discover that racial integration doesn’t work and decide to keep races separate eternally. This is essentially what Dake teaches—that God has learned through human history that races should remain segregated and will enforce this separation even in heaven. Only a God with limited knowledge could make such a discriminatory discovery.

The Challenge to Dake’s Followers

If you have been influenced by Dake’s teaching on God’s knowledge, this chapter presents you with a critical choice. You cannot have it both ways—you cannot claim to believe in biblical omniscience while accepting Dake’s limitations on divine knowledge. The two positions are fundamentally incompatible.

An Honest Assessment

Ask yourself honestly:

• Do you believe God knows everything, or that He knows everything “knowable” (with future free choices being unknowable)?
• Do you believe God declares the end from the beginning, or that He declares His intentions while waiting to see what happens?
• Do you believe God never learns anything, or that He learns as events unfold?
• Do you believe nothing takes God by surprise, or that He experiences genuine surprise at unexpected developments?
• Do you believe God’s plan cannot fail, or that He adjusts His plan based on unforeseen choices?

Your answers reveal whether you believe in the God of the Bible or Dake’s limited deity. You cannot affirm both without contradicting yourself.

The Biblical Alternative

The Bible presents a God whose knowledge is truly infinite, absolutely comprehensive, and eternally perfect:

He knows all things actual: “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3). Nothing that exists escapes His knowledge.

He knows all things possible: Jesus said of Sodom, “If the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day” (Matthew 11:23). God knows not only what is but what would be under different circumstances.

He knows all thoughts: “Thou understandest my thought afar off” (Psalm 139:2). Before a thought forms in our minds, God knows it completely.

He knows all words: “There is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether” (Psalm 139:4). Every word we will ever speak is already known to God.

He knows all actions: “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). Every action, past, present, and future, is fully known to God.

He knows all futures: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:10). God doesn’t guess about the future; He declares it with absolute certainty.

This is the God worthy of our worship, trust, and obedience. This is the God who can keep His promises, fulfill His prophecies, and guarantee our salvation. This is the God Dake denies with his limitations on divine knowledge.

The Call to Decision

You must choose between Dake’s limited God and the Bible’s omniscient God. This isn’t a secondary issue where Christians can agree to disagree. The nature of God’s knowledge affects everything else in theology and Christian life. A God who doesn’t know everything:

• Cannot guarantee His promises
• Cannot ensure prophetic fulfillment
• Cannot provide absolute security
• Cannot work all things together for good
• Cannot be trusted with our eternal destiny

Is this the God you want to serve? Is this the God you want to proclaim to others? Is this the God in whom you place your eternal hope?

Recovering Biblical Omniscience

For those ready to reject Dake’s errors and return to biblical truth, the path forward is clear. It requires both repudiation of error and embrace of truth, both intellectual correction and spiritual renewal.

Recognizing the Damage

First, acknowledge the damage Dake’s teaching has done to your understanding of God. This isn’t easy. It requires humility to admit you’ve been deceived. It may mean recognizing that years of study using the Dake Bible have led you away from rather than toward truth. But this recognition is essential for recovery.

Consider what you’ve lost by accepting Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge:

Lost Confidence in Prayer: How many prayers have been weakened by uncertainty about whether God knows the future you’re praying about?

Lost Trust in Providence: How many times have you doubted God’s control because you believed He was learning along with events?

Lost Peace in Trials: How much anxiety has resulted from believing God didn’t foresee your troubles and is scrambling to respond?

Lost Assurance of Salvation: How often have you wondered if God can really keep His promises when He doesn’t know what tomorrow holds?

Lost Wonder in Worship: How much worship has been diminished by believing God is limited in His knowledge?

These losses are real and painful, but recognizing them is the first step toward restoration.

Returning to Scripture

Second, return to Scripture itself, reading it without Dake’s interpretive grid. Let the Bible speak for itself about God’s knowledge. Read the clear passages about divine omniscience and accept them at face value rather than explaining them away. When you encounter anthropomorphic language, interpret it as such rather than as literal limitations on God.

Study especially these key passages:

• Psalm 139—God’s comprehensive knowledge of individuals
• Isaiah 40-48—God’s unique ability to declare the future
• Matthew 10:29-31—God’s detailed knowledge of everything
• Acts 15:18—God’s eternal knowledge of all His works
• Romans 11:33-36—The depth of God’s knowledge and wisdom
• Hebrews 4:13—Nothing hidden from God’s sight

Read these passages repeatedly until their truth displaces Dake’s errors in your mind and heart.

Embracing Orthodox Resources

Third, replace Dake’s materials with sound theological resources. You need to reprogram your theological thinking with biblical truth. Consider these recommendations:

Study Bibles: Replace the Dake Bible with a sound study Bible like the ESV Study Bible, the NIV Study Bible, or the Reformation Study Bible. These provide notes that explain rather than contradict Scripture.

Systematic Theologies: Read a solid systematic theology like Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology,” Millard Erickson’s “Christian Theology,” or Louis Berkhof’s “Systematic Theology.” These present the historic Christian faith accurately.

Devotional Classics: Read devotional works that celebrate God’s omniscience, like A.W. Tozer’s “The Knowledge of the Holy,” J.I. Packer’s “Knowing God,” or Stephen Charnock’s “The Existence and Attributes of God.”

Church History: Study what Christians have always believed about God’s knowledge. Read the creeds, confessions, and writings of the church fathers to see the unanimous testimony to divine omniscience.

Rebuilding Spiritual Confidence

Finally, rebuild your spiritual confidence based on God’s true omniscience. This involves both theological understanding and practical application:

Pray with renewed confidence, knowing that God knows your needs before you ask and has already prepared His answers according to His perfect knowledge.

Trust God’s providence completely, believing He works all things together for good because He knows all things exhaustively and controls all things sovereignly.

Face trials with peace, understanding that nothing takes God by surprise and every difficulty serves His perfectly known purposes.

Share the gospel boldly, confident that God knows who will respond and has prepared their hearts according to His eternal plan.

Worship with full devotion, praising the God whose knowledge is infinite, whose understanding is unsearchable, and whose wisdom is past finding out.

Testimonies of Liberation

Many have escaped Dake’s errors and found freedom in biblical truth. Their testimonies encourage others still trapped in his system:

The Pastoral Warning

Pastors and church leaders bear special responsibility for protecting their flocks from Dake’s errors. If you are in spiritual leadership and have been influenced by or are using Dake’s materials, this warning is especially for you.

The Weight of Responsibility

James 3:1 warns, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” Teachers are held to a higher standard because their errors affect not just themselves but all who learn from them. Every time you teach Dake’s limitation of God’s knowledge, you’re not just sharing a different interpretation—you’re spreading heresy that undermines the very nature of God.

Consider the spiritual damage you may be causing:

• New believers who learn a deficient view of God from the start
• Struggling Christians who lose confidence in God’s providence
• Seekers who reject a God too limited to trust
• Mature believers whose faith is shaken by theological confusion

You will answer to God for what you’ve taught about Him. Will you continue proclaiming Dake’s limited deity, or will you return to preaching the omniscient God of Scripture?

The Path of Correction

If you’ve been teaching Dake’s errors, correction is not only possible but necessary:

First, stop using Dake materials immediately. Remove Dake Bibles from your church library and bookstore. Stop quoting his notes in sermons. Cease recommending his resources to others. This may seem drastic, but radical error requires radical correction.

Second, study the biblical doctrine of omniscience thoroughly. Don’t just assume you now understand it correctly. Invest serious time in studying what Scripture actually teaches about God’s knowledge. Read orthodox theologians. Consult multiple commentaries. Pray for the Spirit’s illumination.

Third, publicly correct your previous teaching. This requires humility, but your congregation needs to know you’ve been teaching error and are now committed to truth. Explain what you taught wrongly, why it was wrong, and what the Bible actually teaches. Your transparency will build rather than undermine trust.

Fourth, teach a series on the attributes of God. Help your congregation understand not just omniscience but all of God’s perfections. Ground them in orthodox theology so they can recognize and resist errors like Dake’s in the future.

Fifth, implement theological safeguards. Establish a theology reading group for leaders. Require theological training for teachers. Review curriculum for doctrinal soundness. Create an environment where theological accuracy is valued and errors are corrected.

The Rewards of Faithfulness

Pastors who have rejected Dake’s errors and returned to biblical truth report profound transformation in their ministries:

Conclusion: The God Who Knows

As we conclude this examination of Dake’s assault on divine omniscience, the contrast between his teaching and biblical truth stands in stark relief. Dake offers us a God who learns, discovers, investigates, hopes, and experiences disappointment—a God whose knowledge, while vast, is limited and growing. Scripture presents a God whose understanding is infinite, who knows the end from the beginning, who declares things that are not yet done, before whom all things are naked and open.

The difference is not minor or negotiable. It strikes at the very heart of who God is and whether He can be trusted absolutely. Can you trust a God who doesn’t know tomorrow’s free choices to guide your decisions today? Can you rely on a God who’s learning along with events to work all things together for good? Can you worship a God whose knowledge is limited as worthy of supreme devotion?

The biblical answer is clear: the God who doesn’t know everything isn’t God at all. He may be powerful, wise, and benevolent, but if His knowledge is limited, He is not the God revealed in Scripture. He is not the God who inspired prophecy, who promises security, who guarantees salvation, who deserves worship.

Finis Dake, despite his claims to biblical fidelity, has given us a different god—a god made in man’s image, limited as we are limited, learning as we learn, hoping as we hope, disappointed as we are disappointed. This is not the “high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity” (Isaiah 57:15) but a celestial being who happens to know more than we do. This is not the God “with whom we have to do” (Hebrews 4:13) but a theological construct of human philosophy.

The tragedy is that millions have accepted this limited deity as the God of the Bible. Through the widespread use of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible, countless believers have unconsciously absorbed a deficient view of God that undermines their faith, weakens their prayer life, diminishes their worship, and robs them of the confidence that comes from trusting an omniscient God.

But there is hope. Error can be recognized and rejected. Truth can be recovered and embraced. The God of the Bible—the God who truly knows all things—still reveals Himself through His Word to those who seek Him. He still draws people from the darkness of theological error into the light of biblical truth. He still transforms minds confused by false teaching into minds renewed by sound doctrine.

If you have been influenced by Dake’s teaching about God’s knowledge, today can be the day of liberation. You can reject the limited god of Dake’s imagination and embrace the omniscient God of biblical revelation. You can stop trying to inform God through prayer and start trusting His perfect knowledge. You can cease worrying about God being surprised and rest in His comprehensive foreknowledge. You can abandon the anxiety of serving a learning deity and find peace in serving the God who knows all things.

The prophet Isaiah contrasts the true God with false gods by pointing to omniscience as the defining difference: “Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods” (Isaiah 41:21-23).

The challenge is clear: only the true God knows the future exhaustively. Only the true God can declare what shall happen. Only the true God possesses omniscience. Dake’s limited deity fails this test. He cannot show us what shall happen because he doesn’t know what free agents will choose. He cannot declare things to come with certainty because the future remains open and unknown to him. He is not god at all.

But the God of Scripture passes this test perfectly. He declares the end from the beginning. He knows all things—past, present, and future, actual and possible, necessary and contingent. His understanding is infinite. His knowledge is perfect. His foreknowledge is exhaustive. He is the God who knows, and because He knows, He is the God we can trust completely.

This is the God Dake denies. This is the God Scripture proclaims. This is the God worthy of our worship, trust, and obedience. Choose this day whom you will serve—Dake’s limited, learning deity or the omniscient God of the Bible. The choice you make will affect not just your theology but your entire Christian life. Choose wisely. Choose biblically. Choose the God who knows.

Footnotes

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

2. Ibid.

3. Finis Jennings Dake, notes on Genesis 18:21, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), 24.

4. Ibid.

5. Finis Jennings Dake, notes on Genesis 6:5-6, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), 10.

6. Finis Jennings Dake, notes on Genesis 6:6, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), 10.

7. Ibid.

8. Finis Jennings Dake, “16 Things God Has Done in Ps. 139,” Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963).

9. Finis Jennings Dake, “The Searching God,” notes on Psalm 139:1, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963).

10. Ibid.

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

12. Ibid., 63.

13. Ibid., 62-63.

14. Ibid., 63.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid., 388.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.