Chapter 09: Other Divine Attributes Under Attack

While the previous chapters have examined Dake’s most obvious departures from orthodoxy—his tritheism, his teaching that God has a body, and his attacks on omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence—these represent only part of the damage he inflicted on the biblical doctrine of God. Like a vandal in a cathedral, Dake didn’t content himself with destroying just the most prominent features; he systematically defaced every aspect of God’s nature that makes Him truly God. In this chapter, we examine how Dake’s teachings undermine God’s immutability (His unchanging nature), reject divine simplicity (His unity of being), redefine eternality (His relationship to time), and diminish His holiness (His moral perfection). When we survey the cumulative effect of these attacks, we discover that Dake hasn’t merely adjusted our understanding of certain divine attributes—he has presented us with an entirely different god, one who bears little resemblance to the God revealed in Scripture and worshiped by the church throughout history.

Dake, Finis Jennings. God’s Plan for Man. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949. [All subsequent citations refer to this edition unless otherwise noted.]

God’s Immutability Questioned: The God Who Changes

At the heart of biblical theology lies the doctrine of divine immutability—the truth that God does not and cannot change. This isn’t merely a philosophical concept but a biblical revelation with profound practical implications. Malachi 3:6 declares, “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” James 1:17 affirms that with God there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Hebrews 13:8 proclaims that “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” These aren’t isolated proof texts but expressions of a truth woven throughout Scripture: God’s being, attributes, purposes, and promises remain forever constant.

Yet Dake’s hyperliteral hermeneutic led him to conclusions that fundamentally contradict divine immutability. While he would claim to believe God doesn’t change, his actual teachings present a deity who learns, discovers, reacts, and adjusts His plans based on new information. This isn’t the unchanging God of Scripture but a being in process, developing and adapting like His creatures.

The Problem of “God Repented”

Several Old Testament passages speak of God “repenting” or “changing His mind.” Genesis 6:6 states, “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Exodus 32:14 records, “And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” 1 Samuel 15:11 quotes God saying, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king.”

Orthodox theology has always understood these passages as anthropopathisms—descriptions of God’s actions in human emotional terms to help us understand divine responses to human behavior. They describe how God’s unchanging nature relates to changing human circumstances. When humans repent and turn from sin, God’s unchanging justice and mercy mean He relates to them differently—not because He has changed, but because they have. The language of divine “repentance” accommodates our limited understanding, describing from a human perspective what appears to be change but is actually the consistent application of God’s unchanging character to changed circumstances.

Dake’s commentary on Malachi 3:6 reveals this misunderstanding even more clearly. He states: “I change not. This could only refer to basic character and to keeping covenant, not to acts of judgment or mercy when needed. God has repented or changed His mind when it became necessary because of free moral agents rebelling to the point of judgment, and this was in keeping with His character.”¹ This interpretation creates insurmountable theological problems. If God truly changes His mind, then:

• God’s knowledge is imperfect: He must have been mistaken about His original decision, or He didn’t foresee the consequences.
• God’s wisdom is questionable: His first choice wasn’t the best if He needs to change it.
• God’s promises become uncertain: If God can change His mind about past decisions, can He change His mind about salvation?
• Prayer becomes manipulation: We’re trying to convince God to change His mind rather than aligning ourselves with His will.

Dake further clarifies his view of immutability by attempting to redefine it: “He is immutable as to His plan for the highest good of being and of the universe. His plan includes change of methods or ways to save as many men as possible.”² But this merely relocates the problem rather than solving it. If God’s methods change, then His original methods were inadequate or suboptimal—which contradicts divine omniscience and wisdom.

In his detailed explanation in God’s Plan for Man, Dake makes his position even clearer. He asserts: “The Bible also records the changes of God’s will and plan in a later age over that of an earlier one. Such changes have been taken by the ungodly as contradictions, but such have had to be made by God because of the sin and rebellion of the people to whom He promised such things and for whom He made a certain plan. For example, in Gen. 1:31 God saw everything that He had made and it was good, but in Gen. 6:6 God repented that He had made man. In the meantime, between the two passages, sin and rebellion had entered, which made it necessary for God to have a changed attitude toward man. God has had to change His plan temporarily because of man’s sin, but the original and eternal plan of God for creation has never been changed and will never be. God will finally realize His original purpose; that is the reason for His present dispensational dealings.”¹² This statement explicitly affirms that God changes His plans in response to human actions—a fundamental denial of immutability.

Consider the implications for our confidence in God’s promises. If God genuinely changes His mind based on circumstances, what prevents Him from changing His mind about the gospel? About eternal life? About the forgiveness of sins? The entire foundation of Christian faith rests on God’s unchanging character and promises. Remove that foundation, and everything collapses.

Dake’s Teaching on Divine Learning

Even more troubling is Dake’s suggestion that God learns and discovers things. Throughout his notes, he interprets passages about God “coming down to see” or “searching” as literal descriptions of divine investigation. For instance, in Genesis 18:21, God says regarding 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.”

Orthodox interpretation recognizes this as God’s way of demonstrating the justice of His actions—investigating before judging, not because He needs information but to show that His judgments are based on facts, not arbitrary decisions. It’s divine accommodation to human understanding of justice.

But Dake’s literalistic approach led him to suggest that God actually needed to investigate to gain information. In his commentary on this passage, he implies that God’s knowledge, while vast, requires verification through investigation. This transforms the omniscient God into a being with superior but limited knowledge—quantitatively greater than ours but not qualitatively different.

In his notes on Genesis 6:6, Dake explicitly states: “Divine inspection and dissatisfaction. God learns true conditions the same as man.”³ He further explains: “God is capable of all feelings, emotions, and right desires as we are.”⁴ While the latter statement about emotions might be understood charitably within an orthodox framework, Dake uses it to support the former claim that God must investigate to learn—a position incompatible with omniscience.

Dake’s comprehensive treatment of this issue in God’s Plan for Man leaves no doubt about his position. He writes at length: “God does not personally do everything that is done in all acts and events, nor has He known, elected, chosen, or predestinated all the acts and events from all eternity past. Several times God, Himself said of certain events that they did not come into His mind (Jer. 19:5; 32:35; 44:21). 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). He did not know that Israel would backslide as far as she did (Dt. 32:19-29; Isa. 59:15-19). 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).”¹³

He continues this remarkable explanation: “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.”¹⁴ Here Dake explicitly compares God to a business executive who needs reports from field agents because he cannot know everything directly—a stunning reduction of divine omniscience.

The Practical Consequences of a Changing God

The damage of teaching that God changes extends far beyond theological abstraction into the daily life of faith. Consider how this affects:

1. Our Security in Salvation: If God can change His mind, our salvation is never secure. Perhaps God will decide that the blood of Christ isn’t sufficient after all. Perhaps He’ll raise the standard for heaven. Perhaps He’ll revoke His offer of grace. Without an unchanging God, we have no unchanging gospel.

2. Our Confidence in Prayer: Why pray to a God who might change His mind about what’s best? If God is still learning and discovering, He might not know what we truly need. If He’s reacting to circumstances, He’s not sovereign over them. Prayer becomes an exercise in uncertainty rather than confident appeal to One who knows the end from the beginning.

3. Our Trust in Trials: Romans 8:28 promises that God works all things together for good for those who love Him. But this promise depends on God’s unchanging purpose and perfect knowledge. A God who changes His mind might make mistakes with our lives. A God who’s learning might not know how to bring good from evil. In suffering, we need an immutable God whose purposes cannot fail.

4. Our Hope for the Future: All biblical prophecy depends on God’s immutability. If God changes, His prophetic word becomes tentative suggestion rather than certain prediction. The blessed hope of Christ’s return, the promise of resurrection, the assurance of eternal life—all become uncertain if God Himself is uncertain or changeable.

Divine Simplicity Rejected: The God with Parts

Divine simplicity is the classical Christian doctrine that God is not composed of parts but is purely and simply God. This doesn’t mean God is easy to understand (simple in that sense) but that He isn’t composite—made up of various elements combined together. God doesn’t have attributes that are added to His being; rather, He is His attributes. He doesn’t possess love, wisdom, and power as separate components; He is love, wisdom, and power in His simple, unified essence.

This doctrine safeguards several crucial truths about God:

• God’s independence: A composite being depends on its parts being properly arranged
• God’s perfection: A composite being could theoretically be improved by rearranging its parts
• God’s unity: A composite being could potentially be divided
• God’s necessity: A composite being requires something to unite its parts

Dake’s Explicit Rejection of Simplicity

Dake not only implicitly rejected divine simplicity through his teaching that God has a body (bodies are necessarily composite), but he explicitly taught that God is composed of parts. In God’s Plan for Man, Dake writes:

This statement reveals multiple departures from orthodoxy. Not only does Dake make God composite (having separate body, soul, and spirit), but he multiplies this composition across three separate beings. In Dake’s system, we don’t have one simple God but three composite beings, each made up of three distinct parts. That’s nine separate components that somehow constitute the Godhead.

Dake elaborates on this teaching in his “89 Proofs of A Divine Trinity,” where he asserts: “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.”⁵ He continues: “The soul is that which feels and the spirit is that which knows.”⁶

In his systematic treatment of this topic, Dake provides even more explicit statements. He writes: “If the fact is revealed that there are three separate distinct beings in the Deity or Godhead, this would be sufficient to warrant the conclusion that each of them have separate bodies, souls, and spirits, like all other separate and distinct beings. Even disembodied spirits are separate and distinct from each other and can be numbered as are all other beings. Shall we conclude that only one of the members of the Godhead has a body, soul, and spirit, as proved of God in Lesson Four, and that the other two persons of the Deity are bodiless and do not have souls and spirits? In that case there would only be one person, but since there are three persons entirely separate and distinct from each other, it is only reasonable that each of them are the same in substance and nature, and that they all have had from eternity the same kind of spirit-bodies, soul passions, and spirit-faculties.”¹⁵

The philosophical problems with this view are overwhelming. If God the Father consists of body, soul, and spirit as separate parts:

Which part is actually divine? Is it the body? The soul? The spirit? All three? If all three, then we have three divine essences in one person, which is incoherent. If only one, then the other parts are non-divine additions to God, making God dependent on non-divine components.

What unites these parts? In humans, theologians debate what unites body and soul. But if God requires something to unite His parts, then that uniting principle would be more fundamental than God Himself. God would depend on it for His existence as a unified being.

Could God lose one of these parts? Composite beings can potentially lose components. Could God’s body be separated from His soul? Could His spirit depart from His body? If not, why not? If these parts are truly distinct, separation should be possible.

Are these parts eternal? Did God’s body, soul, and spirit all exist eternally, or did He acquire some of them? If all are eternal, we have multiple eternal entities that somehow became God. If some were acquired, God changed from simple to composite—a fundamental alteration in His very being.

The Biblical Testimony to Divine Simplicity

While the term “divine simplicity” doesn’t appear in Scripture, the concept is thoroughly biblical. Consider the evidence:

God’s Self-Identification: When Moses asked God’s name, God replied, “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14). This isn’t just a name but a statement about God’s nature—He is pure being, existence itself, not a being composed of various parts. He doesn’t have existence; He is existence.

God’s Uniqueness: Deuteronomy 6:4 declares, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” The Hebrew word echad (one) emphasizes God’s unity and uniqueness. While Dake tried to argue this means “composite unity,” the context is contrasting Israel’s one God with the many gods of paganism. The emphasis is on God’s singular uniqueness, not on multiple parts forming a unity.

Dake’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4 reveals his fundamental misunderstanding. He claims: “The Heb. for one here (Dt. 6:4) is echad which means united as one, as well as one in number; and certainly its use in this passage means composite unity and not absolute unity.”⁷ But this reading imports tritheism into a passage that affirms monotheism against polytheism.

God’s Spirituality: Jesus declared, “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Not “God has a spirit” or “God is a spirit being with a spirit body,” but simply “God is spirit.” This identifies God’s very essence as spiritual, not composite. Spirit, by definition, is simple, not composed of parts like physical bodies are.

Yet Dake reinterprets even this clear statement. He writes: “God is a Spirit Being, not the sun, moon, stars; nor an image of wood, stone, or metal; and not beast or man. He is not the air, wind, universal mind, love or some impersonal quality. He is a person with a personal spirit body, a personal soul, and a personal spirit.”⁸ Notice how Dake adds “body, soul, and spirit” to a passage that says only “God is spirit.”

The Trinity and Simplicity

Some might object that the doctrine of the Trinity—one God in three persons—contradicts divine simplicity. If God is three persons, isn’t He composite? This objection misunderstands both doctrines. The Trinity doesn’t teach that God is composed of three parts but that the one, simple divine essence exists in three distinct persons. The persons are not parts of God but distinct subsistences of the one divine essence.

Dake’s error was to transform the three persons into three separate beings, each composed of multiple parts. This isn’t Trinitarian theology but tritheism compounded by composition. Instead of one simple God in three persons, Dake gives us three composite gods somehow united in purpose. This destroys both divine simplicity and the Trinity.

Eternality Redefined: The God Who Experiences Duration

God’s eternality means more than just existing forever. It refers to God’s unique relationship to time. Classical Christian theology has understood God as transcending time—not subject to temporal succession, not experiencing past, present, and future as we do, but existing in an eternal present where all moments are immediately present to Him. This doesn’t mean time is unreal but that God isn’t confined within it.

This understanding of divine eternality has profound implications:

• God’s knowledge is perfect because all of time is present to Him
• God’s plans cannot fail because He sees their completion from the beginning
• God doesn’t age, develop, or change through time
• God can act in time while transcending it

Dake’s Temporalized Deity

Dake’s teaching about God having a body necessarily places God within time and space. A body exists in space and moves through time. It has a location at each moment and experiences succession—it was here, is now there, and will be elsewhere. This fundamentally alters our understanding of God’s relationship to time.

In his book Revelation Expounded, Dake makes remarkable claims about time and eternity that reveal his deficient understanding:

This statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both time and eternity. Dake reduces eternity to endless duration, failing to grasp that God’s eternality is qualitatively different from temporal existence. He makes God subject to temporal succession just like His creatures, only without beginning or end.

In God’s Plan for Man, Dake elaborates on this theme extensively: “The common conception is that at a certain point time ceases to be and eternity begins. But the fact is that we are now in eternity, for eternity is the extension of time forever. There never will be a time when there will be no time. The word time means infinite duration, or its measure into distinct parts, a definite portion of duration. The word eternity means infinite duration, or time, continuing without end. Time is commonly contrasted with eternity. Such contrasts may be true as far as things which have a beginning are concerned, but such could not be true of things that have no ending. The heavens and Earth and all things therein as originally created are eternal. Since the creation of these things, eternity has been broken up into times and seasons, days and nights, months and years and ages and periods, and God always recognizes this in His Word. Men generally think of eternity as beginning with the next life or with the New Heaven and New Earth, but this is not true. When men enter the next life and the heavens and the Earth are made new, there is no change made in time or eternity, for they remain the same forever.”¹⁶

The problems with this view are severe:

1. God Becomes Subject to Time: If God experiences temporal succession, then time is more fundamental than God. Time becomes the framework within which God exists, rather than God being the creator and sovereign over time. This makes time a kind of deity alongside God, eternal and independent.

2. God’s Knowledge Becomes Sequential: A God who experiences duration must learn about events as they happen. He may know the future through foresight, but He doesn’t experience it as present. This introduces a kind of development in God’s consciousness—He has memories of the past and expectations of the future rather than eternal presence to all moments.

3. God’s Acts Become Temporal: If God is in time, His acts of creation, providence, and redemption become temporal events that affect Him. The incarnation becomes a change in God’s experience. The crucifixion becomes a moment when God the Father experienced the loss of the Son. The resurrection becomes a divine relief. God becomes emotionally and experientially affected by temporal events.

The Biblical Vision of Divine Eternality

Scripture presents God as transcending temporal limitations while acting within time. Consider these testimonies:

God’s Name Reveals His Eternality: “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14) isn’t just about self-existence but about God’s eternal present. He doesn’t say “I was” or “I will be” but “I AM.” To God, all moments are equally present.

God Declares the End from the Beginning: Isaiah 46:10 says God declares “the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done.” This isn’t just foreknowledge but reflects God’s eternal perspective where beginning and end are simultaneously present.

A Day Is as a Thousand Years: 2 Peter 3:8 declares, “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” This isn’t about God experiencing time slowly or quickly but about His transcendence of temporal categories. Time doesn’t constrain or define God’s existence.

Before Abraham Was, I AM: Jesus’ remarkable statement in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am,” uses the present tense to describe existence before a past event. This grammatically jarring statement reflects the eternal present of divine existence.

Holiness Diminished: The God Who Tolerates Sin

God’s holiness is perhaps His most distinctive attribute—the one that most separates Him from His creation. The Hebrew word qadosh means “separate” or “set apart.” God’s holiness refers both to His transcendent majesty (He is wholly other, infinitely above creation) and His moral perfection (He is absolutely pure, entirely free from sin).

The Bible consistently emphasizes God’s holiness as central to His character:

• The seraphim cry “Holy, holy, holy” before God’s throne (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8)
• God’s name is holy (Psalm 111:9; Luke 1:49)
• God cannot look upon sin (Habakkuk 1:13)
• God’s holiness demands holiness from His people (Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:16)

How Dake’s System Diminishes Divine Holiness

While Dake would formally affirm God’s holiness, his overall theological system significantly diminishes it in several ways:

1. Physical Embodiment Reduces Transcendent Holiness: By giving God a body, Dake makes God less “wholly other” and more like His creatures. A God with hands and feet, who moves from place to place, who exists in space like we do, loses the transcendent otherness that is essential to holiness. He becomes the greatest being rather than the ground of all being, quantitatively superior rather than qualitatively different.

Dake explicitly states: “God can be like man in bodily form and still be as magnificent as we have always thought Him to be. He can have a spirit-substance body and still be like man in size and shape; and He can have passions, feelings, desires, intelligence, and will power without being confined to man’s limitation and sinfulness.”⁹ But this reduces the infinite to the finite, making God merely a larger version of ourselves.

2. Multiple Gods Dilute Unique Holiness: In biblical theology, God’s holiness includes His absolute uniqueness—there is none like Him. But in Dake’s tritheistic system, there are three gods who presumably share similar holiness. This transforms holiness from God’s unique characteristic to a shared divine attribute, diminishing its significance.

3. The Gap Theory Introduces Pre-Human Sin: Dake’s elaborate Gap Theory, which posits a pre-Adamic race that fell into sin under Lucifer’s rule, creates theological problems for understanding God’s holiness. If God created beings who sinned before Adam, and if He destroyed them in a flood (as Dake claims), then:

4. Racist Theology Contradicts Holy Love: Perhaps most seriously, Dake’s “30 reasons for segregation of races” represents a fundamental failure to understand God’s holiness. The holy God who commands us to “love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:39) cannot simultaneously command racial segregation. Dake wrote:

Dake’s full list of “30 reasons for segregation of races” explicitly states: “God wills all races to be as He made them. Any violation of God’s original purpose manifests insubordination to Him”¹⁰ and “God made everything to reproduce ‘after his own kind’ (Gen. 1:11-12, 21-25; 6:20; 7:14). Kind means type and color or He would have kept them all alike to begin with.”¹¹

This teaching attributes to the holy God a form of prejudice that Scripture explicitly condemns. The God who “is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34) and in whom “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28) cannot be the author of racial segregation. By attributing racism to God, Dake diminishes God’s moral perfection and holiness.

The Biblical Requirement of Holiness

Scripture consistently teaches that God’s holiness demands a response from His people. Because God is holy, we must be holy:

“Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16). This isn’t merely a command but reveals a fundamental principle: relationship with the holy God requires holiness. Not the self-generated holiness of human effort, but the imparted holiness that comes through redemption in Christ.

“Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). Holiness isn’t optional for Christians but essential. Without holiness—the sanctifying work of the Spirit conforming us to Christ—we cannot enter God’s presence.

“What manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11). The coming day of the Lord, when unholy things will be destroyed, should motivate us to holy living now.

But if God Himself isn’t absolutely holy—if He has a body like creatures, if He changes His mind, if He experiences time sequentially, if He can be mistaken—then the standard for holiness becomes unclear. Why should we strive for moral perfection if God Himself isn’t perfectly transcendent and unchangeable?

The Cross and God’s Holiness

The cross of Christ supremely demonstrates God’s holiness. There we see both God’s absolute opposition to sin (it required the death of His Son) and His perfect love (He gave His Son for sinners). The cross makes sense only if God is infinitely holy, unable to overlook sin or compromise His justice.

But in Dake’s system, where God changes His mind and learns from experience, the cross loses its necessity. If God can simply decide to overlook sin (as He supposedly did with the pre-Adamite race), why was the cross necessary? If God’s justice is flexible, why couldn’t He just forgive without sacrifice?

Furthermore, if there are three separate Gods (as Dake teaches), which one demanded satisfaction for sin? Did all three agree on the necessity of the cross? Could they have disagreed? These questions reveal how Dake’s theology undermines the biblical understanding of atonement, which depends on one God whose holiness demands satisfaction for sin.

The Cumulative Effect: A Different God Entirely

When we step back and survey the damage Dake has done to the doctrine of God, the picture is devastating. Attribute by attribute, doctrine by doctrine, Dake has dismantled the biblical God and constructed in His place a deity of his own imagination. Let’s summarize what we’re left with in Dake’s system:

This isn’t a matter of minor theological differences or varying interpretations of difficult passages. Dake has presented us with a fundamentally different deity. The god of Dake’s system is not the God revealed in Scripture and worshiped by the church throughout history. It’s a finite, limited, changeable being (or rather, three such beings) who resembles the gods of paganism more than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The Interconnected Nature of Divine Attributes

One of the most serious aspects of Dake’s errors is his failure to understand that God’s attributes cannot be separated or modified in isolation. The divine attributes are not independent characteristics that God happens to possess but interconnected aspects of His simple, unified nature. When you damage one attribute, you necessarily damage them all.

Consider how the attributes relate to each other:

Omnipresence Requires Spirituality: Only a spiritual being can be everywhere present. A physical body, by definition, occupies a specific location. When Dake gives God a body, he necessarily denies omnipresence.

Omniscience Requires Immutability: A God who learns is a God who changes—He moves from not knowing to knowing. Perfect knowledge requires unchanging knowledge. When Dake suggests God discovers things, he denies both omniscience and immutability.

Immutability Requires Simplicity: A composite being can change through rearrangement of its parts. Only a simple being is truly unchangeable. When Dake makes God composite (body, soul, spirit), he makes change possible.

Holiness Requires Transcendence: God’s moral perfection is inseparable from His transcendent otherness. A God who is just like us except bigger cannot be holy in the biblical sense. When Dake reduces God to a super-powered creature, he diminishes holiness.

Eternality Requires All the Above: A God who transcends time must be spiritual (not bound by space), simple (not subject to temporal change), immutable (not developing through time), and omniscient (knowing all moments equally).

This interconnectedness means that Dake’s errors compound each other. Each false teaching reinforces and requires the others, creating a systematic distortion of the doctrine of God. You cannot accept Dake’s teaching on one attribute while rejecting the others—they form an integrated (though false) theological system.

Why Attributes Cannot Be Separated: The Unity of God’s Being

The attempt to modify or redefine individual divine attributes while leaving others intact reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of who God is. God’s attributes are not accessories He wears or tools He uses—they are who He is in His very essence. This is what theologians mean when they say God’s attributes are identical with His essence.

God IS His Attributes

Scripture doesn’t merely say God has love but that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). It doesn’t just say God possesses light but that “God is light” (1 John 1:5). God doesn’t just speak truth; He is “the truth” (John 14:6). This language points to something profound: God’s attributes aren’t qualities added to His being but expressions of His simple, unified essence.

Consider the implications:

• God’s love is not a feeling He has but His very nature expressed relationally
• God’s justice is not a standard He follows but His nature expressed morally
• God’s power is not a force He wields but His nature expressed actively
• God’s knowledge is not information He possesses but His nature expressed cognitively

This means we cannot subtract an attribute without destroying God’s nature entirely. A God without omniscience isn’t God with a limitation—it’s not God at all. A God without immutability isn’t God with flexibility—it’s not God at all. Each attribute is essential to deity.

The Danger of Selective Theology

Many who use the Dake Bible practice what might be called “selective theology”—accepting some of Dake’s teachings while rejecting others. They might embrace his dispensationalism while ignoring his tritheism, or appreciate his emphasis on the supernatural while overlooking his racism. But this selective approach is ultimately impossible because Dake’s errors stem from his fundamental misunderstanding of God’s nature.

For example:

You Cannot Accept Dake’s Eschatology While Rejecting His Theology Proper: Dake’s elaborate end-times scenarios depend on his view of God as a being who reacts to events and changes plans. His dispensational system assumes God tries different approaches with humanity, learning from each failure. If God is truly omniscient and immutable, Dake’s dispensational framework collapses.

You Cannot Accept Dake’s Spiritual Warfare Teaching While Rejecting His Dualism: Dake’s emphasis on demons and territorial spirits flows from his view of God as limited and localized. If God is omnipresent and omnipotent, the kind of cosmic dualism Dake presents—where God and Satan are locked in an uncertain battle—makes no sense.

You Cannot Accept Dake’s “Faith Teaching” While Rejecting His View of Divine Limitation: Many of Dake’s teachings that influenced the Word of Faith movement depend on his view of God as bound by spiritual laws and limited in His ability to act without human cooperation. If God is truly sovereign, these teachings fall apart.

The All-or-Nothing Nature of Theology Proper

Theology proper—the doctrine of God—is the foundation upon which all other doctrines rest. Get this wrong, and everything else crumbles:

This is why Dake’s errors are so dangerous. They don’t just affect our understanding of God in abstract theological terms—they undermine the entire structure of Christian faith and practice.

The Practical Consequences: How This Affects Daily Christian Life

Some might argue that these theological distinctions are merely academic, with little relevance to practical Christian living. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our view of God shapes everything about our spiritual life. The god we worship determines how we pray, how we face trials, how we understand salvation, and how we live each day.

Prayer Becomes Uncertain

If God is as Dake describes Him—changing His mind, learning new information, locked in one location—prayer becomes an exercise in uncertainty:

• Information Transfer: We must inform God about situations He might not know about
• Persuasion: We must convince God to change His mind about things
• Location Issues: We must hope God is paying attention to our location
• Competition: We must compete with others for God’s limited attention
• Uncertainty: We can never be sure God won’t change His mind after answering

But biblical prayer rests on the truth that God is omniscient (He already knows our needs), immutable (His purposes are certain), omnipresent (He’s always near), and omnipotent (He’s able to answer). Without these truths, prayer becomes a desperate hope rather than confident faith.

Suffering Loses Meaning

If God is learning and changing, if He’s surprised by events and adjusts His plans accordingly, then our suffering might be meaningless—the result of divine mistakes or oversights. A God who says “oops” cannot promise that “all things work together for good” (Romans 8:28).

But the biblical God, who is omniscient and immutable, can guarantee that our sufferings have purpose. He hasn’t been caught off guard. He isn’t scrambling for solutions. From eternity, He has planned how to bring good from evil, glory from suffering, victory from defeat. This confidence sustains believers through the darkest valleys.

Salvation Becomes Tentative

If God changes His mind based on new information or circumstances, what prevents Him from changing His mind about the gospel? Perhaps He’ll discover that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t sufficient. Perhaps He’ll decide that faith alone isn’t enough. Perhaps He’ll raise the standard for heaven or lower the penalty for sin.

The security of our salvation rests entirely on God’s unchanging nature. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8) isn’t just a comforting thought—it’s the foundation of our eternal hope. A changing God means a changing gospel, which means no gospel at all.

Worship Becomes Confused

What does it mean to worship Dake’s god(s)? Do we worship three separate beings? Do we address our prayers to the one with a body who is localized in heaven, or to the Spirit who is omnipresent? When we sing “Holy, Holy, Holy,” are we addressing three different gods or one?

Furthermore, how do we worship a God who is essentially just a bigger, more powerful version of ourselves? The awe and reverence that true worship requires flow from recognizing God’s infinite transcendence—He is wholly other, completely unlike us, deserving worship precisely because He is not a creature but the Creator.

Dake’s theology reduces worship to admiration of a superior being rather than adoration of the infinite God. It’s the difference between respecting a powerful ruler and worshiping the source of all existence.

Ethics Loses Its Foundation

If God changes His mind, learns from experience, and reacts to circumstances, then moral absolutes become impossible. What God commands today He might prohibit tomorrow. What He condemned yesterday He might approve today. Ethics becomes situational, relative, uncertain.

This is particularly evident in Dake’s racist teachings. If God truly commanded racial segregation (as Dake claimed), then either:

• God’s moral standards have changed (He once approved what He now condemns)
• God was wrong (His earlier commands were mistaken)
• God is inconsistent (He commands love while prohibiting its expression)

But the immutable, holy God of Scripture provides an unchanging foundation for ethics. His commands flow from His unchanging nature. What He declared good at creation remains good. What He declared evil remains evil. This gives us solid ground for moral decision-making.

The Historical Witness: Why the Church Has Always Rejected These Errors

Dake’s errors regarding divine attributes are not new. Throughout church history, similar teachings have arisen and been rejected. Understanding this history helps us see why these doctrines matter and why the church has consistently affirmed the classical attributes of God.

The Early Church’s Battle for Truth

From the beginning, the church faced challenges to orthodox theology proper:

The Anthropomorphites (4th century) taught that God has a physical body based on literal interpretations of biblical anthropomorphisms. The church rejected this, recognizing that such language is accommodative, helping us understand God’s actions without implying He has physical form.

The Arians (4th century) denied the full deity of Christ, making Him a created being. While different from Dake’s error, Arianism similarly destroyed the unity of God and was condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD).

The Tritheists (6th century) taught three separate gods united in purpose, remarkably similar to Dake’s position. John Philoponus and others were condemned for teaching that the three persons of the Trinity are three distinct beings.

The Reformation’s Clarity

The Protestant Reformers, while disagreeing with Rome on many issues, unanimously affirmed classical theology proper:

Martin Luther wrote extensively on God’s attributes, affirming divine simplicity, immutability, and omnipresence. His Small and Large Catechisms teach the traditional understanding of God’s nature.

John Calvin devoted the opening sections of his Institutes to God’s attributes, strongly affirming God’s spirituality, simplicity, and immutability. He wrote, “God’s essence is simple and undivided, and He contains all in Himself, without portion or derivation.”

The Reformed Confessions consistently affirm classical theology proper. The Westminster Confession states: “There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible.”

The Modern Departure

Only in recent centuries have some groups begun to abandon classical theology proper, often due to:

• Hyperliteralism: Reading anthropomorphisms as literal descriptions
• Anti-intellectualism: Rejecting theological precision as “man’s wisdom”
• Pragmatism: Focusing on what “works” rather than what’s true
• Individualism: Trusting personal interpretation over church wisdom

Dake represents an extreme form of this departure, but he’s part of a broader trend that abandons centuries of careful theological reflection in favor of novel interpretations that appeal to modern sensibilities.

The Path Back: Recovering the Biblical Doctrine of God

For those who have been influenced by Dake’s teaching on divine attributes, the path back to biblical orthodoxy requires both unlearning error and learning truth. This is not merely an intellectual exercise but a spiritual journey that affects every aspect of faith and practice.

Step 1: Recognize the Seriousness of the Error

This isn’t a minor disagreement about secondary matters. The doctrine of God is foundational to everything else in Christianity. Getting this wrong affects:

• The gospel itself (who is the God who saves?)
• The person of Christ (who became incarnate?)
• The work of the Spirit (who indwells believers?)
• The reliability of Scripture (who inspired it?)
• The hope of eternal life (who guarantees it?)

Until we recognize that Dake’s errors strike at the heart of Christian faith, we won’t have sufficient motivation to reject them thoroughly.

Step 2: Return to Scripture with Sound Hermeneutics

Read the Bible again, but this time with proper interpretive principles:

When we read Scripture this way, the classical attributes of God emerge clearly and consistently.

Step 3: Embrace the Mystery

Dake’s theology appeals partly because it makes God comprehensible—a being like us, only bigger. But the true God transcends our full comprehension. As Isaiah 55:8-9 declares, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

We must become comfortable with mystery—not the mystery of contradiction but the mystery of transcendence. God is knowable but not comprehensible. We can know Him truly but not exhaustively. This humility is essential to orthodox faith.

Step 4: Learn from the Church’s Wisdom

Two thousand years of Christian reflection on God’s nature shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. Read the church fathers, the medieval theologians, the Reformers, and sound contemporary theologians. Discover why the church has consistently affirmed certain truths about God.

Recommended resources include:

• Augustine’s Confessions and On the Trinity
• Anselm’s Proslogion
• Aquinas’s Summa Theologica (especially the section on God’s nature)
• Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1
• Stephen Charnock’s The Existence and Attributes of God
• A.W. Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy
• J.I. Packer’s Knowing God

Step 5: Reorient Your Spiritual Life

As your understanding of God corrects, your spiritual practices must adjust:

Prayer becomes confident appeal to the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God who knows your needs, has power to meet them, and is always near.

Worship becomes awe-filled adoration of the transcendent, holy, infinite God who is worthy precisely because He is not like us.

Trust becomes settled confidence in the immutable God whose purposes cannot fail and whose promises cannot be broken.

Obedience becomes joyful submission to the all-wise God whose commands flow from perfect knowledge and holy love.

Hope becomes certain expectation based on the faithful God who cannot lie and will not change.

Conclusion: The God Who Is Worthy of Worship

As we conclude this examination of how Dake’s teachings attack God’s attributes, we must return to the central question: Who is God? The answer to this question determines everything else in the Christian faith. Dake offers us gods (plural) who are powerful but limited, knowledgeable but learning, present but localized, eternal but temporal, holy but flawed. These are not gods worthy of worship but enhanced creatures who differ from us only in degree.

But Scripture reveals the God who is truly God:

• One in essence, three in person—a Trinity of perfect love and unity
• Spirit, not body—transcending all physical limitations
• Omnipresent—fully present everywhere, always available to all who call
• Omniscient—knowing all things perfectly, eternally, and immediately
• Omnipotent—able to do all His holy will without effort or limitation
• Immutable—never changing in being, perfections, purposes, or promises
• Simple—not composed of parts but purely and simply God
• Eternal—transcending time while acting within it
• Holy—infinitely transcendent and morally perfect

This is the God who spoke creation into existence, who sustains all things by His powerful word, who loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, who raised Jesus from the dead, who sends His Spirit to indwell believers, and who will one day make all things new. This is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; the God revealed in Scripture and worshiped by the church.

Consider what we lose if we accept Dake’s theology:

We lose the comfort of God’s omnipresence. In our loneliest moments, when we feel abandoned and isolated, the truth that God is fully present brings indescribable comfort. “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Hebrews 13:5) becomes meaningless if God is bodily localized in heaven.

We lose the confidence of God’s omniscience. When life seems chaotic and purposeless, knowing that God sees the end from the beginning brings peace. “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18) provides no comfort if God is still learning.

We lose the security of God’s immutability. In a world of constant change, where nothing seems stable or permanent, God’s unchanging nature is our anchor. “The same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8) offers no stability if God Himself changes.

We lose the hope of God’s omnipotence. When facing impossible situations, overwhelming enemies, or insurmountable obstacles, God’s unlimited power is our hope. “With God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26) becomes empty rhetoric if God has limitations.

We lose the awe of God’s transcendence. The mystery, majesty, and glory of God that produce worship flow from His infinite transcendence. A God with a body, who exists in space and time like us, might impress but cannot inspire the worship due to the truly infinite God.

A Call to Return

For those who have been influenced by Dake’s teaching, this chapter is a call to return to the God of the Bible. Not the diminished deity of Dake’s imagination, but the infinite, eternal, unchangeable God revealed in Scripture. This return requires:

• Humility to admit we’ve been wrong
• Courage to reject familiar but false teaching
• Diligence to study Scripture carefully
• Wisdom to learn from the church’s history
• Faith to trust the God who transcends our understanding

The journey from Dake’s gods to the biblical God is not easy. It requires unlearning cherished errors and learning challenging truths. It means abandoning a comprehensible deity for a transcendent God. It means exchanging certainty based on human logic for faith based on divine revelation.

But the reward is worth the effort. To know the true God—infinite, eternal, unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth—is to find the source of all joy, peace, and hope. This God is worthy of our worship, deserving of our trust, and sufficient for our every need.

The Witness of the Saints

Throughout history, those who have known the true God have testified to His sufficiency. Listen to their voices:

Augustine: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” Only the infinite God can satisfy the human heart.

Bernard of Clairvaux: “What is God? He is length, breadth, height, and depth.” Not physical dimensions but infinite perfections in every direction.

Thomas Aquinas: “God is His own existence.” Not a being who happens to exist but Being itself, the source of all existence.

Martin Luther: “God is that being than whom alone nothing can be thought greater or better.” The God who exceeds our highest thoughts.

Jonathan Edwards: “God is the highest good of the reasonable creature, and the enjoyment of Him is the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied.” Only the true God truly satisfies.

C.H. Spurgeon: “The proper study of the Christian is the Godhead. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can engage the attention of a child of God is the name, the nature, the person, the doings, and the existence of the great God which he calls his Father.”

These saints knew the God that Dake obscures—the God who is truly God.

Final Reflections: The God We Can Trust

As we close this chapter, we must ask ourselves: Which God will we worship? Which God will we trust? Which God will we proclaim?

Will we worship Dake’s limited, localized, learning deities who change their minds and discover new information? Or will we worship the biblical God who is infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, and immutable?

Will we trust in gods who might fail, might change, might be mistaken? Or will we trust the God who cannot fail, will not change, and is never mistaken?

Will we proclaim a gospel that depends on changeable gods with bodies and limitations? Or will we proclaim the gospel of the infinite, eternal, unchangeable God who loved us and gave Himself for us?

The choice seems obvious, yet Dake’s influence shows that many have chosen the former. They’ve exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image made like corruptible man (Romans 1:23). They’ve reduced the Creator to the level of the creature, the infinite to the finite, the transcendent to the terrestrial.

But for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, Scripture still proclaims the true God:

“Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable. One generation shall praise thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts. I will speak of the glorious honour of thy majesty, and of thy wondrous works.” (Psalm 145:3-5)

This unsearchable greatness—this glorious majesty—this is what Dake’s theology destroys. By making God searchable (with a body we can measure), by removing His majesty (making Him like us), by explaining away His wondrous works (through naturalistic limitations), Dake robs us of the very God we need.

But the true God remains. Unchanged by Dake’s errors. Undiminished by false teaching. Undefeated by human speculation. He is still the God who declares:

“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me… I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:5-7)

This is the God of Scripture. This is the God of the church. This is the God we worship. Not the diminished deities of Dake’s imagination, but the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come.

May He deliver His people from every false teaching that diminishes His glory. May He restore to His church a true vision of His infinite perfections. May He be known, loved, and worshiped as He truly is—infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

To Him alone be glory forever and ever. Amen.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.