Finis Dake’s Distortion of the Biblical Doctrine of God’s Oneness

This report examines how Finis Jennings Dake, through his various publications including “God’s Plan for Man,” “Revelation Expounded,” and his annotated study Bible, fundamentally distorted the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity. While using traditional theological terminology, Dake redefined these terms to teach tri-theism – the belief in three separate Gods rather than one God in three persons. This analysis will demonstrate through extensive quotations from Dake’s own writings how he rejected the essential Christian doctrine that God is one in essence or substance, and instead taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three completely separate beings with their own individual bodies, souls, and spirits.

Introduction: The Importance of Understanding God’s Nature

The doctrine of the Trinity stands at the heart of Christian theology. For two thousand years, orthodox Christianity has affirmed that God is one in essence or substance, existing eternally as three distinct persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This fundamental truth distinguishes Christianity from polytheism on one hand and unitarianism on the other. When teachers arise who distort this essential doctrine while claiming to be biblical, it becomes necessary to examine their teachings carefully and expose their errors.

Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987) was a Pentecostal minister and author whose Dake Annotated Reference Bible and numerous books have influenced many Christians. However, beneath his use of traditional Christian terminology lay a radical departure from orthodox theology. Dake did not merely misunderstand the Trinity; he actively rejected it in favor of tri-theism, teaching that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods who work together in unity rather than one God in three persons.

Part I: What Orthodox Christianity Teaches About God’s Oneness

The Historic Christian Position

Before examining Dake’s errors, we must first understand what orthodox Christianity has always taught about the nature of God. The historic Christian faith, as expressed in the great creeds and confessions of the church, maintains several key truths about God’s nature:

Biblical Foundation for the Orthodox View

Scripture clearly teaches both the oneness of God and the threeness of persons. The Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 declares, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” This fundamental monotheism is never compromised in the New Testament. Jesus himself affirmed it in Mark 12:29. Yet Scripture also reveals the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons who are each identified as God.

The church fathers and medieval theologians carefully developed the vocabulary to express these biblical truths. They spoke of one “ousia” (essence or being) and three “hypostases” (persons or subsistences). The Athanasian Creed expresses it this way: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.”

The Meaning of “One” in Orthodox Theology

When orthodox Christianity says God is “one,” it means that there is only one divine nature or essence. This is not merely a unity of purpose or agreement, but a unity of being itself. The three persons do not each have their own separate divine nature; rather, they share the one divine nature completely. This is why Christians are monotheists, not polytheists or tri-theists.

Part II: Dake’s Radical Redefinition of God’s Oneness

Dake’s Definition of Terms

In his works, Dake consistently redefines traditional theological terms while continuing to use them. This creates confusion because readers may think he is teaching orthodox doctrine when he is actually promoting tri-theism. Let us examine how Dake defines key terms related to the Godhead.

Notice how Dake immediately begins to redefine “one” not as one in essence or being, but as a unity of separate persons working together. This becomes even clearer as he continues his explanation. He specifically rejects the idea that “one” means one in substance or essence.

Dake’s Explicit Rejection of One Essence

Dake makes his position crystal clear in “God’s Plan for Man” when he addresses the question of how God can be three persons yet one. His answer reveals his complete departure from orthodox Christianity:

This quotation reveals several critical errors in Dake’s theology:

1. He equates divine unity with human unity: Dake argues that just as three human persons can be united in purpose while remaining separate beings, so the three persons of the Godhead are separate beings united in purpose.
2. He attributes bodies to each person of the Trinity: Dake explicitly states that each person of the Godhead has their own separate body, soul, and spirit.
3. He denies the mystery of the Trinity: Dake mocks the idea that the Trinity is a mystery, claiming it can be easily understood by comparing it to human examples.
4. He rejects the unity of essence: By insisting that the three persons retain complete individuality with separate bodies, souls, and spirits, Dake denies that they share one divine essence.

Dake’s Teaching on Separate Bodies

One of the most striking aspects of Dake’s tri-theism is his insistence that each person of the Trinity has a separate physical or material body. This teaching appears throughout his works:

Here Dake makes the extraordinary claim that God the Father has a body. This directly contradicts Jesus’ teaching in John 4:24 that “God is spirit.” Dake attempts to get around this by arguing that having a spirit body is different from being pure spirit, but this fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God as taught in Scripture and orthodox theology.

Dake’s View of Divine Interpenetration

Orthodox theology teaches that the three persons of the Trinity interpenetrate one another (perichoresis) – they dwell in one another in a way that maintains their distinction while affirming their essential unity. Dake completely rejects this understanding:

Dake reduces divine interpenetration to mere agreement of purpose and cooperation. He cannot conceive of the three persons sharing one essence while remaining distinct persons. This limitation in his thinking leads him inevitably to tri-theism.

Part III: How Dake Distorts Biblical Texts

Misinterpretation of Hebrew Terms

Dake’s interpretation of the Hebrew word “echad” (one) is particularly problematic. While it’s true that “echad” can sometimes refer to a compound unity (as in Genesis 2:24 where man and woman become “one flesh”), Dake extends this meaning far beyond what the text warrants. When applied to God in Deuteronomy 6:4, the context makes clear that this is affirming monotheism against the polytheism of surrounding nations, not suggesting that multiple Gods are united in purpose.

Furthermore, Dake ignores passages that use even stronger language for God’s oneness. For instance, when God says in Isaiah 44:6, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God,” this cannot be reconciled with Dake’s view of three separate Gods. The Hebrew here is emphatic – there is no other God, period. Not “no other God working separately,” but no other God at all.

Misunderstanding of New Testament Texts

Dake frequently misinterprets New Testament passages that speak of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, when Jesus says “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), the Greek word for “one” (hen) is neuter, not masculine. This indicates oneness of essence, not merely oneness of purpose. The Jews understood this claim correctly, which is why they wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy – He was claiming to be God, not just to be working with God.

Similarly, when Paul writes in Colossians 2:9 that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” Dake interprets this as Christ having His own separate divine nature that happens to be full. But Paul’s point is that the entire Godhead – all that makes God to be God – dwells in Christ. This is not a separate divinity but the one divinity of the one God.

Anthropomorphic Language Taken Literally

Throughout Scripture, God is described in anthropomorphic terms – He has hands, eyes, arms, etc. Orthodox theology has always understood these as accommodations to human understanding, ways of describing God’s actions and attributes in terms we can grasp. God doesn’t literally have physical eyes, but He sees all things.

Dake, however, takes these descriptions literally and uses them to argue that God the Father has a physical body:

This interpretation completely misunderstands the nature of biblical anthropomorphism and leads Dake to limit God to a physical body in a specific location, contradicting God’s omnipresence and spirituality.

Part IV: The Dangerous Implications of Dake’s Teaching

Polytheism Disguised as Christianity

While Dake uses Christian terminology and claims to believe in the Trinity, his actual teaching is polytheistic. He believes in three Gods who happen to work together, not one God in three persons. This is not a minor theological dispute but a fundamental departure from Christianity itself.

Consider the implications: If there are three separate Gods, then which one should we worship? Can they disagree with each other? Could they potentially work against each other? Dake would say no, they are perfectly united in purpose, but this unity is merely voluntary cooperation, not essential unity. What prevents them from disagreeing?

Destruction of the Gospel

The Gospel depends on the incarnation – God Himself became man to save us. If Jesus is a separate God from the Father, then we have one God sending another God to die for us. This fundamentally changes the nature of the atonement. John 3:16 tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.” In orthodox theology, this is God giving of Himself. In Dake’s theology, it’s one God giving another God.

Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit is a separate God, then we have yet another God dwelling in believers. Paul says our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) and also temples of God (1 Corinthians 3:16). In orthodox theology, these are the same truth expressed differently. In Dake’s theology, we would have to ask: which God’s temple are we?

Confusion About Worship

Christians worship one God in three persons. We don’t worship three Gods. But if Dake is correct, then we are polytheists who worship three deities. This contradicts the most fundamental confession of both Old and New Testament faith – that there is one God and Him only shall we serve.

Jesus taught us to pray to “Our Father.” He said the Holy Spirit would glorify Him (Jesus). The Spirit testifies about the Son. The Son reveals the Father. In orthodox theology, this is the one God revealing Himself through the distinct persons. In Dake’s theology, these are three Gods pointing to each other.

Part V: Examining Dake’s Specific Errors

Error 1: Physical Bodies for Each Person of the Godhead

One of Dake’s most serious errors is his insistence that each person of the Trinity has a separate physical or spiritual body. Let’s examine his exact words on this subject:

Dake extends this reasoning to God the Father, arguing that since angels have bodies and since God is described with bodily parts in Scripture, God must have a literal body. This reasoning fails on multiple levels:

1. It contradicts Jesus’ explicit teaching: In John 4:24, Jesus clearly states “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” Spirit by definition is not physical or material.
2. It limits God to space and time: If God has a physical body, even a glorified spiritual body, He is limited to being in one place at one time. This contradicts God’s omnipresence.
3. It misunderstands anthropomorphic language: When the Bible speaks of God’s hands, eyes, or other body parts, it is using human language to describe divine actions and attributes, not giving a physical description of God.

Error 2: Three Separate Spirits

Dake teaches that each person of the Godhead has their own separate spirit. This creates an absurd situation where the Holy Spirit would have His own spirit separate from Himself. Let’s look at how Dake explains this:

This teaching reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s nature. In orthodox theology, God is spirit – not that He has a spirit, but that His very essence is spiritual, not material. The Holy Spirit is not a spirit that God has, but God Himself as Spirit. To say that the Holy Spirit has a separate spirit is nonsensical.

Error 3: Redefining the Trinity as Mere Cooperation

Throughout his works, Dake consistently redefines the Trinity from one God in three persons to three Gods working in cooperation. Notice his language:

Notice how Dake compares the Trinity to any group of three persons who work together. This completely evacuates the doctrine of the Trinity of its meaning. The Trinity is not simply about three persons cooperating; it’s about three persons who share one divine essence while remaining distinct in their personhood.

Error 4: Making Unity Optional Rather Than Essential

In Dake’s system, the unity of the Godhead is based on agreement and cooperation, not on essential oneness. This means, theoretically, that the three persons could disagree or work against each other. While Dake would deny this possibility, his theology provides no ontological basis for their unity – it’s merely voluntary.

Let’s see how he explains their unity:

Here Dake reduces divine unity to the same kind of unity that humans can have with each other or even that humans can have with Satan – a unity of purpose and dedication to the same goals. This is infinitely less than the essential unity of being that orthodox Christianity teaches.

Part VI: Historical Context – Why Tri-theism Was Rejected

Early Church Battles Against Tri-theism

Dake’s teaching is not new. The early church faced similar challenges from those who could not reconcile the oneness of God with the threeness of persons. Some, like the Modalists, denied the distinction of persons, teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit were just different modes or manifestations of the one God. Others, like the tri-theists, went to the opposite extreme, teaching three separate Gods.

The church fathers carefully worked out the vocabulary and concepts to maintain both truths – God is one in essence and three in persons. They rejected tri-theism because it contradicted the fundamental monotheism of Scripture and led to polytheism.

The Councils and Creeds

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) affirmed that the Son is “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.” This was specifically to reject the idea that the Son was a separate being from the Father. The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) affirmed the same about the Holy Spirit.

The Athanasian Creed, developed in the 5th century, states: “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” This directly contradicts Dake’s teaching of three Gods united in purpose.

Why This Matters

The church didn’t develop these precise formulations out of a love for philosophical speculation, but to protect the biblical Gospel. If there are three Gods, then:

1. Christianity is not monotheistic but polytheistic
2. The incarnation is not God becoming man but one God becoming man on behalf of another God
3. Our salvation is not God saving us but one God commissioning another God to save us
4. The indwelling Spirit is not God dwelling in us but a third God dwelling in us

Each of these changes fundamentally alters the Christian faith.

Part VII: Dake’s Misuse of Scripture

Proof-Texting Without Context

Dake frequently cites Scripture references to support his positions, but examination shows he often takes verses out of context or misinterprets them. For example, he cites Daniel 7:9-14 as proof that the Father and Son have separate bodies. Let’s examine this passage:

Daniel 7:9-13 describes a vision where “the Ancient of Days” (understood as God the Father) is seated on a throne, and “one like a son of man” (understood as Christ) comes before Him. Dake argues this proves they have separate bodies. However, this is apocalyptic vision literature, filled with symbolic imagery. In the same vision, there are beasts representing kingdoms, horns representing kings, and other symbolic elements. To take the visual elements of this vision as literal physical descriptions while recognizing the symbolic nature of other elements is inconsistent interpretation.

Ignoring Clear Statements of Oneness

While Dake spends much time explaining away the unity of God, he virtually ignores passages that clearly teach God’s essential oneness. Consider these texts:

These passages cannot be reconciled with Dake’s tri-theism. They don’t say “We are the only Gods” or “Apart from us there are no Gods.” They use singular pronouns and explicitly state there is only one God.

Misunderstanding the Incarnation

Dake’s view of the incarnation is particularly problematic. He writes:

This definition creates massive problems for understanding the incarnation of Christ. If Christ, as a separate God, took on a human body and existed only within that body, then:

1. He ceased to be omnipresent during His earthly ministry
2. He was not sustaining the universe during that time (contradicting Colossians 1:17)
3. The Godhead was reduced from three to two during Christ’s earthly life

Orthodox theology teaches that in the incarnation, the eternal Son of God took on human nature without ceasing to be God or losing any divine attributes. He remained fully God while becoming fully man. Dake’s understanding makes this impossible.

Part VIII: The Logical Problems with Dake’s Tri-theism

The Problem of Divine Attributes

If there are three separate Gods as Dake teaches, how can each be omnipotent (all-powerful)? Can there be three all-powerful beings? If one wanted to do something and another didn’t want it done, who would prevail? To say they would never disagree because they’re united in purpose is to base their unity on their wills rather than their nature, making their unity contingent rather than necessary.

Similarly, how can there be three omniscient (all-knowing) beings? Does each know everything the others know? If so, what distinguishes their knowledge? If not, then none of them is truly omniscient.

And how can there be three omnipresent beings if each has a body that exists in a particular location? Dake tries to solve this by distinguishing between God’s presence and His body, but this creates a division in God’s being that Scripture does not support.

The Problem of Worship

Scripture commands us to worship God alone. If there are three Gods, which one do we worship? Dake would say we worship all three, but this is polytheistic worship. The biblical pattern is worship of the one God who exists as three persons, not worship of three Gods who work together.

Jesus said, “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only” (Matthew 4:10). The “him” is singular. We don’t serve “them” but “him.” This makes sense if there is one God in three persons, but not if there are three separate Gods.

The Problem of Creation

Scripture teaches that God created all things. But which God? Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The word for God (Elohim) is plural in form but is used with singular verbs, indicating one God, not multiple Gods.

John 1:3 says of the Word (Christ), “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Colossians 1:16 says of Christ, “For in him all things were created.” If Christ is a separate God from the Father, did He create independently or in cooperation? Scripture presents creation as the work of the one God, not a joint project of three Gods.

Part IX: Responding to Dake’s Arguments

Response to “It’s Simple to Understand”

Dake argues that the Trinity is not a mystery and can be easily understood by comparing it to three humans working together. He mocks those who say the Trinity is beyond human comprehension. But the Trinity IS a mystery in the biblical sense – a truth revealed by God that we could not have discovered on our own and cannot fully comprehend.

The problem with Dake’s “simple” explanation is that it’s TOO simple – it reduces God to the level of created beings. Yes, we can understand three people working together. But that’s not the Trinity. The Trinity is one God in three persons, which has no analogy in creation. Every analogy breaks down because God is unique.

Response to “The Bible Says There Are Three”

Dake correctly notes that the Bible reveals three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But he incorrectly concludes that this means three Gods. The Bible clearly teaches there is only one God. The mystery of the Trinity is holding both truths together – one God, three persons.

When Dake asks, “Do we have to believe that God is only one person in the Godhead when the Bible says there are three?” he’s creating a false dilemma. Orthodox Christianity doesn’t teach that God is only one person. It teaches He is one in essence, three in persons.

Response to “Three Persons Must Retain Their Individuality”

Dake argues that for the three persons to remain distinct, they must have separate bodies, souls, and spirits. But this assumes that personhood requires a separate being, which is not necessarily true even among humans (consider conjoined twins who share organs but are distinct persons).

More importantly, we’re not dealing with created beings but with the uncreated God. The three persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their relations to one another (the Father begets, the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds), not by having separate essences.

Part X: The Biblical Doctrine of Divine Unity

Unity of Essence, Not Just Purpose

When Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), the Jews tried to stone Him. Why? Because they understood He was claiming equality with God, not just cooperation with God. The Greek word used (hen) indicates oneness of essence, not just purpose.

Similarly, when Thomas saw the risen Christ and exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28), he wasn’t acknowledging two Gods but recognizing that Jesus is the one God incarnate.

The Testimony of the Shema

The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) has been the foundational confession of Jewish faith for millennia: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Jesus affirmed this as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29). This is not teaching that multiple Gods are united but that there is only one God.

The Hebrew word “echad” (one) can indicate composite unity, but context determines its meaning. When used of God in the Shema, it’s emphasizing monotheism against the polytheism of surrounding nations. Israel’s God is not one among many but the only God.

New Testament Affirmations

The New Testament consistently affirms monotheism while revealing the three persons:

These passages don’t teach three Gods but one God who exists as three persons.

Part XI: The Consequences of Accepting Dake’s Teaching

Theological Consequences

If we accept Dake’s tri-theism, we must abandon fundamental Christian doctrines:

1. Monotheism: We become polytheists, worshiping three Gods instead of one.
2. The Incarnation: It becomes one God taking on humanity, not God Himself becoming man.
3. The Atonement: It becomes one God dying for sins, not God giving Himself for us.
4. Divine Simplicity: God becomes a composite being rather than simple (uncomposed) in His essence.
5. Divine Immutability: If God has a body that can move and change location, He is not unchangeable.

Practical Consequences

The practical implications are equally serious:

1. Prayer: To which God do we pray? Can we pray to all three separately?
2. Worship: Are we worshiping one God or three? How do we avoid polytheism?
3. Assurance: If there are three Gods, how can we be sure they will always agree about our salvation?
4. Scripture: How do we interpret passages that clearly teach there is one God?

Evangelistic Consequences

Dake’s teaching makes Christianity appear polytheistic to Jews and Muslims, creating an unnecessary barrier to the Gospel. Both Judaism and Islam reject Christianity partly because they misunderstand the Trinity as teaching three Gods. Dake’s position confirms their misunderstanding rather than correcting it.

Part XII: Why Dake’s Errors Spread

Use of Orthodox Terminology

One reason Dake’s teachings have influenced many Christians is his use of orthodox terminology. He speaks of the Trinity, uses traditional terms like “Godhead,” and quotes Scripture extensively. Readers who don’t look carefully at his definitions may think he’s teaching orthodox doctrine.

This is similar to how cults operate – they use Christian terminology but redefine the terms. Dake does the same thing, keeping the word “Trinity” while completely changing its meaning from one God in three persons to three Gods in cooperation.

Appeal to Simplicity

Dake’s teaching appeals to those who find the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity difficult to understand. He offers a “simple” explanation that seems to make sense – three persons working together, just like humans can work together. This appeals to our desire to fully understand everything about God.

But God is not fully comprehensible to finite minds. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Emphasis on Biblical Language

Dake constantly appeals to biblical language, arguing that we should just believe what the Bible says without adding philosophical concepts. This sounds pious, but it ignores the fact that the Bible must be interpreted correctly. The church developed precise theological language to accurately express biblical truth and avoid error.

For example, the Bible doesn’t use the word “Trinity,” but the concept is clearly taught. The church coined this term to express the biblical truth that God is one in essence and three in persons. Rejecting such terminology in favor of “simple biblical language” often leads to error, as Dake’s teaching demonstrates.

Part XIII: Examining More of Dake’s Statements

On the Impossibility of God Being Three Persons with One Essence

Let’s examine another revealing statement from Dake about why he rejects orthodox Trinitarian doctrine:

This statement reveals Dake’s fundamental misunderstanding. He thinks orthodox theology teaches that the three persons lose their individuality in the divine essence. But orthodox theology maintains that the three persons remain eternally distinct while sharing one essence. The persons don’t merge or lose their distinctiveness; they are eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

On Bodies and Location

Dake’s insistence on bodies for each person of the Godhead creates insurmountable problems:

Here Dake explicitly states that God has “a finite place as far as the body is concerned.” This means God the Father is located in one place and must travel to be in another place. This directly contradicts numerous Scriptures:

• Jeremiah 23:24: “Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?” declares the LORD. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?”
• Psalm 139:7-10: “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.”
• Acts 17:27-28: “He is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.”

If God has a body in a finite location, He cannot fill heaven and earth or be present everywhere.

On the Holy Spirit Having His Own Spirit

One of the most absurd consequences of Dake’s teaching is that the Holy Spirit must have His own spirit:

Think about this claim: The Holy Spirit has a spirit. This creates an infinite regress – does the Holy Spirit’s spirit have its own spirit? The biblical teaching is that the Holy Spirit IS spirit, not that He HAS a spirit. He is the third person of the Trinity, not a being who possesses a spirit.

Part XIV: The Orthodox Alternative

Understanding Unity and Diversity in God

Orthodox Trinitarian theology maintains both the unity of God and the diversity of persons without compromising either truth. The key insights are:

1. Being vs. Person: Being is WHAT something is; person is WHO someone is. God is one WHAT (divine being) and three WHOs (Father, Son, Spirit).
2. Essential Unity: The three persons share the one divine essence completely. They don’t each have a third of the divine essence; each person is fully God.
3. Personal Distinctions: The persons are distinguished by their relations of origin – the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds.
4. Perichoresis: The three persons interpenetrate one another, existing in eternal communion while maintaining their distinctions.

Biblical Support for Orthodox Trinitarianism

The orthodox doctrine best explains all the biblical data:

The Mystery Remains

Unlike Dake, orthodox Christianity acknowledges that the Trinity remains a mystery – not in the sense of being irrational or contradictory, but in being beyond full human comprehension. We can understand it truly without understanding it exhaustively. This humility before the incomprehensible God is appropriate for creatures addressing their Creator.

Part XV: Answering Potential Objections

Objection: “But the Bible uses plural language for God”

Some might point out that the Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, or that God says “Let US make man in OUR image” (Genesis 1:26). Doesn’t this support Dake’s view of multiple Gods?

No, for several reasons:

1. Elohim, while plural in form, is consistently used with singular verbs when referring to the true God
2. The plural may be a “plural of majesty” common in ancient Near Eastern languages
3. The plural hints at plurality within God without teaching multiple Gods
4. The same passages that use plural language also use singular language for God

Objection: “But Jesus prayed to the Father”

If Jesus is God and the Father is God, how could Jesus pray to the Father? Doesn’t this prove they’re separate Gods?

No, it proves they’re distinct persons. In the incarnation, the Son took on human nature and lived a truly human life, including prayer. The Son as a distinct person could commune with the Father as a distinct person. But this doesn’t mean they’re separate Gods – they share the one divine essence while maintaining personal distinctions.

Objection: “The Trinity is a pagan concept”

Some claim the Trinity was borrowed from pagan religions that had triads of gods. But pagan triads are exactly what Dake teaches – three separate gods. The Christian Trinity is fundamentally different – one God in three persons. Far from being pagan, it’s a uniquely Christian doctrine that preserves monotheism while accounting for the full biblical revelation.

Part XVI: The Importance of Sound Doctrine

Why These Distinctions Matter

Some might ask, “Does it really matter whether we believe in one God in three persons or three Gods in unity? Isn’t the important thing that we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?”

Yes, it matters tremendously. Paul warns Timothy to “watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Timothy 4:16). The early church fought hard to preserve correct teaching about God’s nature because wrong teaching leads to wrong worship and ultimately to a false gospel.

The First Commandment

The first and greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. But which God? If there are three Gods, this commandment becomes problematic. Do we divide our love among three? Do we love them equally? The commandment assumes there is one God who deserves our total devotion.

The Gospel at Stake

The Gospel message is that God became man to save us. Not that one God sent another God, but that God Himself entered His creation to redeem it. John 3:16 says God gave His only Son – this is God giving of Himself, not delegating to another deity.

If we lose the unity of God, we lose the Gospel itself.

Part XVII: Dake’s Influence and Legacy

The Spread of His Teaching

Despite its serious errors, Dake’s teaching has influenced many through:

1. The Dake Annotated Reference Bible: This study Bible contains extensive notes promoting his theological views
2. His books: Works like “God’s Plan for Man” continue to be read and studied
3. Pentecostal and Charismatic circles: His emphasis on the supernatural appealed to these movements
4. Lack of theological training: Many readers lack the theological background to recognize his errors

The Danger of Untrained Teachers

Dake’s errors illustrate the danger of teachers who handle Scripture without proper theological training. While academic credentials don’t guarantee orthodoxy, understanding historical theology helps avoid errors the church has already addressed.

Dake presented himself as getting back to “simple biblical truth” without the complications of theology. But in rejecting centuries of careful theological reflection, he fell into ancient heresies the church had long ago recognized and rejected.

The Need for Discernment

Christians must be discerning about their teachers. Just because someone quotes Scripture extensively doesn’t mean they’re interpreting it correctly. We must test all teaching against the whole counsel of Scripture and the historic faith of the church.

Conclusion: Standing for Biblical Truth

Finis Dake’s teaching about the Godhead represents a serious departure from biblical Christianity. By teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods with their own bodies, souls, and spirits, he has abandoned Christian monotheism for tri-theism. While using orthodox terminology, he has emptied it of its meaning and filled it with polytheistic content.

This is not a minor theological disagreement but a fundamental error that strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. The church has always confessed that God is one in essence and three in persons. This mystery – incomprehensible yet not contradictory – preserves both the monotheism revealed in the Old Testament and the threefold revelation of God in the New Testament.

Dake’s attempt to make the Trinity “simple” by reducing it to three Gods working together may appeal to human reason, but it contradicts Scripture and destroys the Gospel. The good news is not that one God sent another God to die for us, but that God Himself became man to save us. The Spirit dwelling in believers is not a third God but the one God living in His people.

Christians must be vigilant against such errors, testing all teaching against Scripture rightly interpreted. The doctrine of the Trinity, carefully formulated over centuries of reflection on biblical revelation, remains essential to the Christian faith. We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

Let us hold fast to this biblical truth: There is one God, eternally existing in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are distinct but not separate, united not merely in purpose but in essence, one God forever and ever. This is the God revealed in Scripture, confessed by the church, and worthy of our worship.

As we have seen through extensive examination of Dake’s own words, his teaching fundamentally contradicts this biblical truth. By insisting that each person of the Godhead has their own separate body, soul, and spirit, and by reducing divine unity to mere cooperation between separate beings, Dake has abandoned Trinitarianism for tri-theism. This is not the God of the Bible but a philosophical construct that bears more resemblance to pagan polytheism than to biblical Christianity.

May this analysis serve as a warning against the subtle errors that can creep into the church when teachers, however sincere, depart from sound doctrine. May it also encourage believers to study deeply, think carefully, and hold firmly to the faith once delivered to the saints. The God we worship is neither a solitary monad nor a pantheon of deities, but the one true God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – three persons in one divine essence, forever.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.