Finis Dake’s Doctrine of Limited Divine Foreknowledge

Introduction

Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987) was a Pentecostal minister and author whose teachings have influenced millions through his widely distributed Dake Annotated Reference Bible and numerous theological works. While Dake made valuable contributions to biblical scholarship in some areas, his teachings on God’s foreknowledge represent a significant departure from orthodox Christian theology. This report examines Dake’s denial of God’s complete foreknowledge, comparing his views with both open theism and traditional evangelical Christianity.

The importance of this study cannot be overstated. The doctrine of God’s omniscience, including His perfect foreknowledge of all future events, stands as a foundational truth of biblical Christianity. When this doctrine is compromised, it affects our understanding of God’s sovereignty, the reliability of prophecy, the nature of prayer, and the very character of God Himself. Dake’s teachings on this subject, while using orthodox theological terminology, fundamentally redefine these terms in ways that align more closely with open theism than with historic Christian orthodoxy.

Part I: Dake’s View of God’s Limited Foreknowledge

The Misunderstood Omniscience

One of the most striking statements in Dake’s writings appears in his book “God’s Plan for Man,” where he directly addresses the question of God’s omniscience. In a section titled “God is Omniscient,” Dake makes this remarkable claim:

This statement reveals the core of Dake’s error. He begins by using the orthodox term “omniscient” but immediately proceeds to argue that God’s knowledge is limited. This represents a fundamental redefinition of omniscience that contradicts centuries of Christian theological understanding.

Dake continues in the same section to list numerous biblical passages that he believes demonstrate God’s limited knowledge. He writes:

This anthropomorphic view of God reduces the infinite Creator to the level of a human executive who needs reports from subordinates to stay informed. Such a view fundamentally misunderstands the nature of divine omniscience and the accommodating language of Scripture.

God’s Need to Test and Discover

Throughout his works, particularly in “Ages and Dispensations,” Dake repeatedly emphasizes that God must test free moral agents to discover what they will do. This theme appears consistently in his explanation of the various dispensations:

While it is true that Scripture speaks of God testing humans, Dake interprets these tests as God’s way of gaining information He does not possess. In his discussion of the Dispensation of Innocence, Dake writes:

The phrase “to see if” implies that God did not know the outcome beforehand. This interpretation appears throughout Dake’s dispensational framework, where each age becomes an experiment through which God learns how humans will respond to different conditions.

God’s Limited Knowledge of Future Free Will Decisions

Dake’s most explicit statements about God’s limited foreknowledge appear in his discussions of free will and moral agency. In “Bible Truths Unmasked,” he writes extensively about how God must work within limits when dealing with free moral agents:

This passage reveals Dake’s fundamental assumption: that genuine free will is incompatible with divine foreknowledge. He believes that if God knew future free decisions, those decisions would not truly be free. This is precisely the same argument made by open theists today.

God Changes His Mind Based on Human Actions

Dake frequently emphasizes passages where Scripture speaks of God “repenting” or changing His mind, interpreting these literally without consideration for anthropomorphic language. In his commentary on biblical prophecy, he argues that God’s plans are conditional and subject to change based on human responses:

This statement explicitly denies that God knows “from all eternity” what free agents will choose. According to Dake, God has a general plan but must wait to see how individuals will respond before He knows the specific outcomes.

Part II: Comparison with Open Theism

Defining Open Theism

Open theism, also known as “openness theology” or “the open view of God,” is a theological position that emerged prominently in evangelical circles during the 1990s, though its roots go back further. Key proponents include Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Gregory Boyd, and William Hasker. The central tenets of open theism include:

1. God’s knowledge is dynamic and growing: Open theists argue that God knows everything that can be known, but the future free decisions of moral agents cannot be known because they do not yet exist.
2. The future is partly open: While God knows all possibilities and probabilities, He does not know with certainty which possibilities will become actualities when it comes to free will decisions.
3. God takes risks: Because God does not know future free decisions with certainty, He takes genuine risks in His interactions with humanity.
4. God responds and adapts: God genuinely responds to human prayers and actions, sometimes changing His plans based on human choices.
5. Divine-human relationship is genuinely reciprocal: The relationship between God and humans involves real give-and-take, with both parties influencing the other.

Striking Parallels Between Dake and Open Theism

When we examine Dake’s teachings alongside open theist doctrine, the similarities are remarkable and undeniable:

1. Limited Divine Foreknowledge

Both Dake and open theists explicitly deny that God knows future free decisions. Dake’s statement that God “does not know from all eternity what they will do” mirrors exactly what open theist Gregory Boyd writes in “God of the Possible” (2000): “God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they make their decisions.”

2. God Learns Through Testing

Dake’s repeated emphasis on God testing humans “to see” what they will do parallels open theist teaching. John Sanders, in “The God Who Risks” (1998), argues that biblical tests like Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac were genuine attempts by God to discover what Abraham would do. Dake makes the same argument about the dispensational tests.

3. Genuine Divine Response to Human Actions

Both positions emphasize that God genuinely responds to and is affected by human choices. Dake’s teaching that God must adjust His plans based on human responses mirrors the open theist doctrine of divine responsiveness.

4. Free Will Requires Libertarian Freedom

Both Dake and open theists assume that genuine free will is incompatible with divine foreknowledge. They share the philosophical assumption that if God knows what you will choose tomorrow, you are not truly free to choose otherwise.

Where Dake Differs from Contemporary Open Theism

While the similarities are striking, there are some differences between Dake’s position and modern open theism:

1. Theological Context

Dake wrote primarily from a Pentecostal/dispensationalist perspective, while many open theists come from broader evangelical backgrounds. Dake’s focus was more on practical Christian living and biblical interpretation, while open theists often engage in philosophical theology.

2. Systematic Development

Open theists have developed their position more systematically and philosophically. They engage with classical theism’s philosophical arguments, while Dake primarily argued from his interpretation of biblical texts.

3. Terminology

Dake continued to use traditional theological terms like “omniscient” while redefining them. Open theists are generally more forthright about rejecting traditional definitions of omniscience.

4. Emphasis on Spiritual Warfare

Dake’s Pentecostal background led him to emphasize spiritual warfare and the role of Satan in ways that most open theists do not. He saw God’s limited knowledge as part of a cosmic battle between good and evil.

The Proto-Open Theist Label

Given that Dake’s major works were published decades before open theism became a recognized movement, it would be anachronistic to call him an open theist. However, it is entirely accurate to describe him as a proto-open theist—someone who anticipated and taught the core doctrines that would later be systematized as open theism.

The fact that Dake arrived at these conclusions independently, through his own biblical interpretation, actually strengthens the open theist claim that their view arises naturally from a “plain reading” of Scripture. Open theists could point to Dake as evidence that their interpretation is not merely a philosophical innovation but a view that emerges when certain biblical texts are taken at face value without the influence of classical theism.

Part III: Contrast with Traditional Orthodox Evangelical Christianity

The Orthodox Doctrine of Divine Omniscience

Traditional evangelical Christianity, in continuity with the historic Christian faith, affirms that God possesses perfect and complete knowledge of all things—past, present, and future. This doctrine, known as omniscience, includes several key components:

1. God’s Knowledge is Exhaustive

Orthodox Christianity teaches that God knows all things that can be known. As stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646): “In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain.”

Scripture abundantly testifies to this truth:

• Isaiah 46:9-10: “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.”
• Psalm 139:4: “Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.”
• 1 John 3:20: “God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.”

2. God’s Knowledge Includes Future Free Decisions

Orthodox theology maintains that God’s foreknowledge extends to the free decisions of moral agents. This is demonstrated throughout Scripture:

• Jesus predicted Peter’s denial down to the specific number of times and the crow of the rooster (Matthew 26:34).
• God foretold Cyrus by name centuries before his birth and predicted his decisions (Isaiah 44:28-45:1).
• The crucifixion of Christ involved countless free decisions by individuals, yet was foreordained and foretold in detail (Acts 2:23).

3. God’s Knowledge Does Not Negate Human Freedom

Orthodox theology maintains the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. This position, known as compatibilism, argues that God’s knowing what we will choose does not cause or force our choices. Knowledge is not causation. Just as our knowledge of past events does not cause those events, God’s knowledge of future events does not cause them.

Key Differences Between Dake and Orthodox Christianity

1. The Nature of Omniscience

This difference is fundamental. The orthodox position maintains that God transcends time and sees all of history as an eternal present. Dake’s position places God within time, learning as events unfold.

2. The Purpose of Divine Testing

The orthodox interpretation sees passages like Genesis 22:12 (“Now I know that you fear God”) as anthropomorphic language—God speaking in human terms for our understanding. Dake takes such passages as literal descriptions of God gaining knowledge.

3. The Interpretation of Divine “Repentance”

Orthodox theology maintains that God’s eternal decree includes His responses to human actions. From the human perspective within time, it appears that God changes His mind, but from the divine perspective, all was foreknown and planned.

4. The Relationship Between Sovereignty and Freedom

This difference affects our understanding of prayer, providence, and the security of God’s promises. Orthodox theology provides believers with confidence that God’s purposes cannot fail. Dake’s view introduces an element of uncertainty into God’s plans.

5. The Nature of Prophecy

The orthodox view sees prophecy as evidence of God’s omniscience. Dake must explain away or reinterpret clear predictive prophecies to maintain his position.

Historical Orthodox Witnesses

The doctrine of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge has been affirmed throughout church history by theologians from all major traditions:

Early Church Fathers

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) wrote in “City of God”: “God’s knowledge cannot be called foreknowledge, as if it were of things future to Him; it is knowledge simply, because with Him there is no past or future.”

John Chrysostom (349-407 AD) stated: “God knows all things before they come to pass, and nothing escapes His knowledge.”

Medieval Theologians

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued in his “Summa Theologica” that God’s knowledge is not discursive (moving from the known to the unknown) but simultaneous and complete: “God knows all things together, and not successively.”

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) maintained that God exists outside of time and therefore sees all temporal events in an eternal present.

Protestant Reformers

Martin Luther (1483-1546) affirmed in “The Bondage of the Will” that “God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will.”

John Calvin (1509-1564) wrote in his “Institutes”: “When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have ever been, and perpetually remain, under His eyes, so that to His knowledge nothing is future or past, but all things are present.”

Modern Evangelical Theologians

Charles Hodge (1797-1878) stated: “The omniscience of God follows necessarily from His omnipresence and omnipotence. He knows all things, actual and possible, past, present, and future.”

Wayne Grudem (contemporary) writes in his “Systematic Theology”: “God fully knows all things that will happen and all things that could happen but will not.”

Part IV: Biblical Refutation of Dake’s Position

Scriptural Evidence for God’s Exhaustive Foreknowledge

The Bible contains overwhelming evidence that God possesses complete knowledge of all future events, including the free decisions of moral agents. Let us examine key passages that refute Dake’s position:

1. God Declares the End from the Beginning

This passage explicitly states that God declares “from ancient times the things that are not yet done.” This includes not just God’s own actions but “the end from the beginning”—the complete unfolding of history. If God did not know future free decisions, He could not declare the end from the beginning.

2. God’s Knowledge of Individual Decisions

God knew Jeremiah and his destiny before he was even conceived. This knowledge included Jeremiah’s future decisions to serve as a prophet. According to Dake’s view, God could not have known whether Jeremiah would accept or reject his calling.

3. Detailed Predictive Prophecy

This prophecy, given approximately 300 years before Josiah’s birth, not only names him but describes his specific actions. These actions involved countless free decisions by Josiah and others. How could God predict this if He doesn’t know future free decisions?

4. Jesus’ Foreknowledge

Jesus predicted not only that Peter would deny Him but the specific number of denials and the timing. Peter’s denials were free decisions—he was not forced to deny Christ. Yet Jesus knew exactly what would happen.

5. God’s Knowledge of the Heart

David declares that God knows his words before he speaks them. This includes knowledge of David’s future thoughts and decisions. The phrase “thou understandest my thought afar off” indicates God’s knowledge extends into the future.

Addressing Dake’s Proof Texts

Dake relies heavily on certain passages that seem to suggest God gains knowledge or changes His mind. Let’s examine how orthodox theology properly interprets these texts:

1. Genesis 22:12 – “Now I Know”

Consider the absurdity of Dake’s interpretation: Would the omnipresent God who “searches the hearts” (Romans 8:27) really not know Abraham’s heart until this moment? The phrase “now I know” refers to Abraham’s faith being actualized and demonstrated, not to God gaining new information.

2. Genesis 6:6 – God “Repented”

Scripture itself clarifies this issue: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent” (Numbers 23:19). The Bible uses human language to describe God’s interactions with His creation, but we must interpret such language in light of clear didactic passages about God’s nature.

3. Jeremiah 19:5 – Things That Never Entered God’s Mind

The same expression appears in Jeremiah 7:31 and 32:35. In context, God is emphasizing that child sacrifice was never His intention or command, contrary to what the Israelites might have thought. This is about God’s prescriptive will (what He commands), not His knowledge of what would occur.

Theological Problems with Dake’s View

Beyond the biblical evidence, Dake’s position creates serious theological problems:

1. It Undermines the Reliability of Prophecy

If God doesn’t know future free decisions, then any prophecy involving human choices could fail. This would make God’s prophetic word uncertain and unreliable. Yet Scripture says, “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken” (Deuteronomy 18:22).

2. It Compromises God’s Sovereignty

If God must wait to see what humans will decide, then He is not truly sovereign over history. His plans become contingent on human decisions He cannot foresee. This contradicts passages like Ephesians 1:11, which states that God “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

3. It Diminishes the Comfort of God’s Promises

Many of God’s promises involve future human decisions. If God doesn’t know these decisions, how can He guarantee His promises? For example, how could God promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18) if He doesn’t know what future generations will choose?

4. It Makes God Subject to Time

Dake’s view places God within the temporal sequence, learning as history unfolds. But Scripture presents God as transcending time: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psalm 90:2).

5. It Contradicts God’s Immutability

If God’s knowledge grows and changes, then God Himself changes. But Scripture declares, “I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6) and “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

Part V: The Dangerous Implications of Dake’s Teaching

Impact on Christian Faith and Practice

Dake’s denial of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge has serious implications for Christian faith and practice. These errors don’t remain in the realm of abstract theology but affect the daily life of believers:

1. Prayer Becomes Uncertain

If God doesn’t know the future, how can we trust His answers to our prayers? When God makes promises about the future, He might be mistaken about what will actually occur. This undermines confidence in prayer and makes God’s guidance uncertain.

Consider Jesus’ promise: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7:7). If God doesn’t know future free decisions, He cannot guarantee that our seeking will lead to finding, because the outcome might depend on decisions He cannot foresee.

2. God’s Promises Become Conditional

Every divine promise that involves future human actions becomes uncertain. God’s promise to work “all things together for good” (Romans 8:28) becomes merely a hope rather than a certainty, because God doesn’t know what “all things” will include.

3. Evangelism Loses Its Foundation

Jesus commanded His disciples to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” with the promise “and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:19-20). If God doesn’t know what future generations will choose, how can He guarantee His presence “unto the end of the world”?

4. Prophetic Ministry Becomes Suspect

Dake came from a Pentecostal tradition that emphasizes prophetic gifts. But if God doesn’t know the future exhaustively, then prophetic words about future events become mere educated guesses rather than divine revelation. This undermines the very gifts Dake’s tradition cherishes.

5. Security of Salvation Is Compromised

Jesus promised, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:27-28). If God doesn’t know future free decisions, how can He guarantee that His sheep will never perish?

The Slippery Slope to Greater Errors

History shows that denying God’s exhaustive foreknowledge often leads to other theological errors:

1. Process Theology

Some who begin by limiting God’s foreknowledge eventually embrace process theology, which teaches that God is evolving and developing along with creation. If God’s knowledge grows, why not His being?

2. Denial of Biblical Inerrancy

If God didn’t know the future when inspiring biblical prophecies, then those prophecies might be wrong. This undermines confidence in Scripture’s reliability and inerrancy.

3. Universalism or Annihilationism

Some who embrace open theism eventually reject eternal punishment, arguing that a God who takes risks wouldn’t allow the possibility of eternal damnation. If God doesn’t know who will be saved, would He risk creating beings who might suffer eternally?

4. Moral Relativism

If God is learning and adapting, perhaps His moral standards are also evolving. This can lead to the rejection of absolute moral standards in favor of situational ethics.

The Pastoral Consequences

Consider how Dake’s teaching affects pastoral ministry:

Counseling the Suffering

When believers face trials, orthodox Christianity offers the comfort that God knew this trial was coming and has a purpose in it. Dake’s view removes this comfort. God is as surprised by our sufferings as we are and is scrambling to respond appropriately.

Guidance for Decision-Making

How can God guide us in making decisions if He doesn’t know the outcomes of our choices? His guidance becomes merely advice based on probabilities rather than certain knowledge of what is best.

Assurance in Ministry

Paul could say, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Timothy 1:12). This confidence is impossible if God doesn’t know the future.

Part VI: Why Dake’s Redefinition of Terms Is Deceptive

The Problem of Theological Equivocation

One of the most troubling aspects of Dake’s teaching is his practice of using orthodox theological terms while radically redefining their meaning. This practice, known as equivocation, is particularly dangerous because it allows false teaching to masquerade as orthodox doctrine.

Using “Omniscient” While Denying Omniscience

Dake repeatedly uses the term “omniscient” to describe God, which would lead most readers to assume he affirms the traditional doctrine. However, he then proceeds to argue that God’s knowledge is limited. This is like saying “God is all-powerful, but there are many things He cannot do” or “God is everywhere present, but there are places He is not.”

This redefinition violates the basic principle of theological communication. Words have established meanings within theological discourse. When someone uses a term like “omniscient,” they implicitly claim to affirm what that term has meant throughout church history. To use the term while rejecting its established meaning is deceptive.

The Cult-like Pattern

The user correctly noted that this pattern of using correct theological terms while reinterpreting them is characteristic of cults. Consider how various cult groups operate:

• Jehovah’s Witnesses speak of Jesus as “the Son of God” but deny His deity
• Mormons use Christian terminology but with completely different meanings
• Christian Science uses biblical terms but spiritualizes them beyond recognition

Dake follows this same pattern with the doctrine of omniscience. He uses the orthodox term to gain credibility while teaching a doctrine that contradicts orthodox theology.

Examples of Dake’s Redefinitions

Let’s examine specific instances where Dake redefines theological terms:

1. “Foreknowledge”

In the image provided from Dake’s Bible notes (page 621), he discusses foreknowledge but limits it to God’s prescience of certain events that He will cause, not all events that will occur.

2. “Eternal Plan”

Dake speaks frequently of God’s “eternal plan” but then explains that this plan must be modified based on human responses God didn’t foresee.

3. “Sovereignty”

The Danger to Unstudied Believers

This redefinition of terms is particularly dangerous for believers who are not well-grounded in theology:

1. False Security

Believers might think they are following orthodox teaching because they hear familiar terms. They don’t realize the meanings have been changed until they are deeply influenced by the false doctrine.

2. Confusion in Communication

When these believers talk with other Christians, they use orthodox terms with unorthodox meanings, creating confusion and potentially spreading error unknowingly.

3. Vulnerability to Further Error

Once believers accept that theological terms can mean something different from their historical meaning, they become vulnerable to other redefinitions and errors.

4. Weakened Discernment

The practice of redefinition undermines the ability to discern truth from error. If words can mean anything, then doctrine becomes fluid and uncertain.

Part VII: A Biblical Response to Dake’s Core Arguments

Addressing the Free Will Objection

Dake’s primary argument against exhaustive divine foreknowledge is that it would eliminate genuine free will. He argues that if God knows what you will choose tomorrow, you are not truly free to choose otherwise. This philosophical argument needs careful biblical examination.

The Compatibility of Foreknowledge and Freedom

Scripture consistently presents both divine foreknowledge and human responsibility as true, without seeing any contradiction:

Notice how this verse combines God’s “determinate counsel and foreknowledge” with human responsibility (“ye have taken, and by wicked hands”). The crucifixion was both foreknown by God and the result of free human choices for which people were held responsible.

Knowledge Is Not Causation

Dake confuses divine foreknowledge with divine causation. But knowing something will happen is not the same as causing it to happen. Consider these distinctions:

• A historian knows what happened in the past, but their knowledge doesn’t cause past events
• A parent might know their child well enough to predict their choices without causing those choices
• God can know future free decisions without causing them

The Bible maintains that humans make genuine choices for which they are responsible, while God foreknows all these choices. Joseph’s brothers freely chose to sell him into slavery, yet Joseph could later say, “God sent me before you to preserve life” (Genesis 45:5).

Addressing the Testing Argument

Dake argues that God must test people to discover what they will do. Let’s examine why biblical tests exist if God already knows the outcome:

Tests Reveal, Not Inform

Biblical tests serve multiple purposes, none of which require God to gain information:

1. To reveal the human heart to itself: Peter didn’t know he would deny Christ until it happened. The test revealed his weakness to himself.
2. To demonstrate faith to others: Abraham’s test demonstrated his faith to future generations. We learn from his example.
3. To develop character: James 1:3 says “the trying of your faith worketh patience.” Tests develop spiritual maturity.
4. To provide basis for reward: God rewards based on actual obedience, not hypothetical willingness.
5. To vindicate God’s judgment: Tests demonstrate the justice of God’s evaluations to all creation.

Biblical Examples

Consider how Scripture itself explains divine testing:

The phrase “to know what was in thine heart” doesn’t mean God was ignorant. The parallel phrase “to humble thee” shows the purpose was to affect the people, not inform God. The testing revealed to Israel their own hearts.

Addressing the Anthropomorphic Language Argument

Dake insists on taking anthropomorphic descriptions of God literally. He argues that if we don’t take statements about God “repenting” or “learning” literally, we are not believing the Bible. This argument requires careful response:

The Bible’s Own Interpretive Principle

Scripture itself tells us how to interpret anthropomorphic language:

This verse explicitly states that God does not “repent” in the human sense. When other passages speak of God repenting, we must interpret them in light of this clear statement.

The Necessity of Anthropomorphic Language

God must communicate with humans in human language. This requires using human concepts and expressions. Scripture speaks of God’s “eyes,” “hands,” “arms,” and “feet.” Should we take these literally? Dake wouldn’t argue that God has a physical body, yet these are biblical descriptions.

The same principle applies to descriptions of God’s knowledge and emotions. When Genesis 6:6 says God “repented,” it’s using human language to describe God’s response to sin in terms we can understand.

Interpreting Scripture with Scripture

The Reformed principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture means we interpret unclear or figurative passages in light of clear, didactic passages. Clear statements about God’s nature (like His omniscience) help us interpret narrative passages that use anthropomorphic language.

Part VIII: The Historical Development of Dake’s Error

Influences on Dake’s Theology

Understanding how Dake arrived at his erroneous position helps us recognize similar errors today. Several factors contributed to his theological deviation:

1. Hyper-Literalism

Dake prided himself on taking the Bible literally “wherever possible.” While literal interpretation is generally correct, Dake failed to recognize legitimate figures of speech, anthropomorphisms, and phenomenological language in Scripture. His statement in the preface of “Revelation Expounded” reveals this approach:

This approach, while appearing to honor Scripture, actually dishonors it by failing to recognize the various literary forms God used in revelation.

2. Dispensational Extremism

Dake’s dispensationalism went beyond traditional dispensational teaching. He saw each dispensation as a genuine experiment where God was learning how humans would respond to different conditions. Traditional dispensationalists see the dispensations as successive stages in God’s unfolding plan, not experiments to gain information.

3. Philosophical Assumptions

Despite claiming to derive everything from Scripture, Dake brought philosophical assumptions to the text. His assumption that free will is incompatible with divine foreknowledge is a philosophical position, not a biblical teaching. He read this assumption into Scripture rather than deriving it from Scripture.

4. Isolation from Orthodox Scholarship

Dake appears to have developed much of his theology in relative isolation from broader Christian scholarship. He made a covenant with God “that he would never teach anything which could not be proven by at least two or three plain Scriptures,” but this individualistic approach led him away from the wisdom of the broader church.

The Pentecostal Context

While many Pentecostals affirm orthodox theology, certain tendencies within some Pentecostal circles may have contributed to Dake’s errors:

1. Emphasis on Experience Over Doctrine

Some Pentecostal groups prioritize spiritual experience over careful doctrine. This can lead to novel interpretations that “feel right” but contradict orthodox teaching.

2. Suspicion of Traditional Theology

Some early Pentecostals were suspicious of traditional theology, seeing it as “dead orthodoxy.” This led some to reject traditional doctrines without carefully examining their biblical basis.

3. Individualistic Bible Study

The emphasis on personal Bible study, while valuable, sometimes led to interpretations developed in isolation from the broader Christian tradition. Dake exemplifies this tendency.

4. Pragmatic Theology

The focus on “what works” in ministry sometimes led to theological formulations based more on practical experience than careful exegesis.

Warning Signs in Dake’s Methodology

Several aspects of Dake’s approach should have served as warning signs:

1. Novel Interpretations

Dake frequently claimed to have discovered “new truths” that the church had missed for centuries. In his preface to “Revelation Expounded,” he claims to reveal “scores of new truths.” This should immediately raise concerns. While the Holy Spirit continues to illuminate Scripture, He does not reveal new doctrines that contradict what He has taught the church for two millennia.

2. Proof-Texting

Dake’s method involved collecting verses that seemed to support his position without careful attention to context. He would list dozens of references, assuming that quantity of citations equals biblical proof. But taking verses out of context and forcing them to support a predetermined position is not sound exegesis.

3. Dismissal of Church History

Dake showed little regard for how Christians throughout history understood these passages. He assumed that he, studying alone with his Bible, could arrive at truth that the greatest theological minds in church history had missed.

4. Logical Inconsistencies

Dake’s system contains internal contradictions. For example, he affirms that God has an eternal plan while denying that God knows how that plan will unfold. He affirms prophecy while denying the exhaustive foreknowledge that makes prophecy possible.

Part IX: The Contemporary Relevance of This Issue

The Ongoing Influence of Dake’s Teaching

Despite the serious theological errors we’ve examined, Dake’s influence continues today through several channels:

1. The Dake Annotated Reference Bible

This study Bible remains popular in certain circles, particularly among some Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians. Many users may not realize that the notes contain serious theological errors. They trust the annotations because they appear alongside Scripture, giving them an authority they don’t deserve.

2. Bible Schools and Institutes

Some smaller Bible schools, particularly those with limited theological resources, have used Dake’s materials as textbooks. Students in these institutions may be taught his errors as biblical truth.

3. Online Distribution

Dake’s materials are now widely available online, often for free. This increases their reach to new generations who may not have the theological training to recognize the errors.

4. Second-Generation Teaching

Many teachers who were influenced by Dake may propagate his errors without even citing him as their source. The ideas have entered the broader theological ecosystem and continue to spread.

The Connection to Contemporary Theological Debates

The issues raised by Dake’s teaching remain highly relevant to current theological discussions:

The Open Theism Controversy

The evangelical community continues to grapple with open theism. Understanding Dake as a proto-open theist helps us see that these ideas aren’t new but represent a recurring deviation from orthodox theology. The arguments Dake made in the mid-20th century are essentially the same ones open theists make today.

The Authority of Scripture

Dake claimed to have a high view of Scripture, taking it “literally” wherever possible. Yet his interpretation led him to conclusions that contradict the Bible’s teaching about God. This illustrates that a claim to biblical authority must be matched by sound hermeneutical principles.

The Role of Tradition

Dake’s errors illustrate the danger of completely dismissing theological tradition. While Scripture is our ultimate authority, the wisdom of centuries of Christian interpretation provides important guardrails against novel errors.

Practical Steps for Addressing Dake’s Influence

For pastors, teachers, and concerned Christians, here are practical steps to address the ongoing influence of Dake’s errors:

1. Education

Teach sound doctrine concerning God’s attributes, particularly His omniscience. Don’t assume people understand these foundational truths. Provide clear, biblical teaching on God’s exhaustive foreknowledge.

2. Discernment Training

Help believers develop discernment skills. Teach them to recognize when familiar theological terms are being redefined. Train them to compare all teaching with Scripture, interpreted in context.

3. Historical Awareness

Introduce believers to the rich heritage of orthodox Christian theology. Help them understand that certain doctrines have been affirmed by the church throughout history for good biblical reasons.

4. Careful Review of Resources

Churches and Christian schools should carefully review the study resources they recommend or use. A popular study Bible or reference work may contain serious errors that require warning or correction.

5. Gracious Correction

When encountering those influenced by Dake’s teaching, respond with grace and patience. Many sincere believers have been misled by his errors. Focus on Scripture and help them see what the Bible actually teaches.

Part X: The Positive Case for God’s Exhaustive Foreknowledge

The Biblical Foundation

Having examined the errors in Dake’s position, let’s build the positive case for God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. This doctrine rests on solid biblical foundation:

God’s Transcendence Over Time

God is not bound by temporal succession as we are. He doesn’t experience moments passing one after another. From His eternal perspective, all of time is present to Him. This is why He can declare “the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10).

The Testimony of Fulfilled Prophecy

The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies that required knowledge of future free decisions:

• The place of Jesus’ birth (Micah 5:2) – requiring knowledge of Caesar’s census decree and Joseph’s decision to travel
• The exact manner of Jesus’ death (Psalm 22) – requiring knowledge of countless human decisions
• The succession of world empires (Daniel 2, 7) – requiring knowledge of millions of human choices
• The preservation of Israel (Jeremiah 31:35-37) – requiring knowledge of all future attempts to destroy the Jewish people

These prophecies demonstrate that God knows not just general outcomes but specific details involving human choices.

The Nature of God’s Perfections

God’s attributes are perfect and unlimited within the scope of their application:

• God’s power is omnipotent – He can do all things consistent with His nature
• God’s presence is omnipresent – He is everywhere present
• God’s knowledge is omniscient – He knows all things that can be known

To limit any of these attributes is to deny God’s perfection. A God with limited knowledge is not the God revealed in Scripture.

Theological Coherence

The doctrine of exhaustive divine foreknowledge coheres with other essential Christian doctrines:

The Doctrine of Providence

God’s providential care requires exhaustive foreknowledge. How could God promise to “work all things together for good” (Romans 8:28) if He doesn’t know what “all things” will include? Providence without foreknowledge would be like a blindfolded pilot trying to navigate a plane.

The Doctrine of Salvation

Scripture teaches that God chose His people “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). This requires that God knew who would exist and what they would choose. The entire doctrine of election presupposes divine foreknowledge.

The Doctrine of Scripture

The reliability of Scripture depends on God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. Biblical prophecies are presented as certain, not merely probable. If God doesn’t know the future exhaustively, then Scripture’s prophetic sections are unreliable.

Pastoral Benefits

The doctrine of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge provides immense comfort and strength to believers:

Confidence in Prayer

We can pray with confidence knowing that God sees the end from the beginning. He knows how to answer our prayers in ways that account for all future contingencies. His answers are based on perfect knowledge, not educated guesses.

Peace in Trials

When we face difficulties, we can rest in the knowledge that nothing has caught God by surprise. He saw this trial coming and has already prepared the way through it. As Joseph said, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20).

Assurance of Salvation

Our salvation is secure because God knew from eternity past who would be saved. He didn’t choose us hoping we would respond; He chose us knowing we would be His. This provides unshakeable assurance.

Trust in God’s Promises

Every promise in Scripture can be trusted because God knows exactly how He will fulfill it. He doesn’t make promises He might not be able to keep. His foreknowledge ensures His faithfulness.

Part XI: Responding to Common Objections

Objection 1: “Foreknowledge Eliminates Free Will”

This is Dake’s primary objection and deserves careful response:

Response:

This objection confuses certainty with necessity. That something is certain to occur doesn’t mean it’s necessary in the sense of being forced. Consider:

• God knew certainly that Jesus would be crucified, but the Jewish leaders and Pilate freely chose their actions
• Jesus knew certainly that Peter would deny Him, but Peter freely chose to deny Christ
• God knew certainly that Pharaoh would harden his heart, but Pharaoh freely chose rebellion

In each case, the certainty of God’s foreknowledge didn’t eliminate the freedom of human choice. The humans involved made genuine decisions for which they were held responsible.

Objection 2: “The Bible Says God Changes His Mind”

Response:

When the Bible speaks of God “repenting” or “changing His mind,” it’s using anthropomorphic language to describe God’s actions from the human perspective within time. Consider:

• The Bible also says God has “eyes,” “hands,” and “wings” – are these literal?
• Scripture explicitly states “God is not a man that He should repent” (Numbers 23:19)
• These passages describe God’s consistent character – He always responds to repentance with mercy and to rebellion with judgment

What appears as change from our perspective within time is actually God’s consistent character expressing itself in response to human actions He always foreknew.

Objection 3: “God Tests People to Learn About Them”

Response:

God’s tests serve purposes other than gaining information:

• Self-revelation: Tests reveal our hearts to ourselves
• Character development: Tests build spiritual strength and maturity
• Public demonstration: Tests demonstrate faith to others
• Basis for reward: God rewards actual obedience, not hypothetical willingness

When Genesis 22:12 says “Now I know,” it means “Now it has been demonstrated.” The test actualized what God always knew would occur.

Objection 4: “Prayer Wouldn’t Matter if God Knows Everything”

Response:

This objection misunderstands the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human action:

• God’s foreknowledge includes knowledge of our prayers
• God ordains the means (prayer) as well as the ends (answers)
• Prayer changes things because God has ordained that it should
• The fact that God knows we will pray doesn’t make our prayers less real or necessary

Scripture commands us to pray and promises that prayer is effective (James 5:16), while also teaching that God knows what we need before we ask (Matthew 6:8). Both truths stand together.

Part XII: Conclusion and Call to Faithfulness

Summary of Findings

Our examination of Finis Dake’s teaching on divine foreknowledge has revealed serious theological errors that align more closely with open theism than with orthodox Christianity:

1. Dake explicitly denies God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, claiming that God does not know future free decisions of moral agents
2. His position essentially makes him a proto-open theist, anticipating by decades the formal movement that would emerge in the 1990s
3. His teaching contradicts clear biblical passages that demonstrate God’s complete knowledge of all future events
4. His redefinition of theological terms while claiming orthodoxy represents a deceptive practice similar to cultic movements
5. His errors have serious implications for Christian faith and practice, undermining confidence in God’s promises, the efficacy of prayer, and the security of salvation

The Importance of Sound Doctrine

This study illustrates why sound doctrine matters. The doctrine of God’s omniscience is not merely an abstract theological concept but a truth that affects every aspect of Christian life:

• It shapes how we pray
• It affects our confidence in God’s promises
• It influences our understanding of salvation
• It determines our view of God’s sovereignty
• It impacts our interpretation of Scripture

When this doctrine is compromised, the entire theological system begins to unravel. What starts as a limitation on God’s knowledge leads to a diminished view of God Himself.

A Call to Biblical Fidelity

In light of these findings, we issue a call to biblical fidelity:

To Pastors and Teachers

Guard the flock entrusted to your care. Be aware that popular study resources may contain serious errors. Test all teaching against Scripture, properly interpreted in context and in harmony with the whole counsel of God. Don’t assume that because something is in print or widely used, it must be sound.

To Bible Students

Develop discernment through careful study of Scripture and sound theology. Don’t be swayed by novel interpretations that claim to reveal “new truths” unknown to previous generations of Christians. Value the wisdom of the historic church while maintaining Scripture as your ultimate authority.

To Those Influenced by Dake’s Teaching

We encourage you to reconsider these doctrines in light of Scripture. The God revealed in the Bible is infinitely greater than Dake’s limited deity. The God who “declares the end from the beginning” is worthy of your complete trust and worship. His exhaustive knowledge is not a threat to your freedom but the foundation of your security.

The God Who Knows

The Bible reveals a God who knows all things – past, present, and future. This God is not surprised by world events, confused by human choices, or uncertain about the future. He is the God who says:

This is the God of orthodox Christianity – omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, and sovereign. He is infinitely greater than the limited deity of Dake’s theology. He knows the number of hairs on your head, the words you will speak tomorrow, and the free decisions of every moral agent throughout history.

Final Thoughts

Finis Jennings Dake contributed to Pentecostal scholarship in various ways, and many have benefited from aspects of his work. However, his teaching on divine foreknowledge represents a serious departure from biblical truth that cannot be overlooked or excused. Using orthodox terminology while teaching heterodox doctrine is particularly dangerous because it deceives the unsuspecting.

The church must remain vigilant against such errors, whether they come from popular teachers, study Bibles, or theological movements. We must “test all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The doctrine of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge is good, biblical, and essential to the Christian faith. It has been believed and taught by the church throughout history for compelling biblical reasons.

May we hold fast to the truth that our God “knoweth all things” (1 John 3:20), that “known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18), and that nothing in all creation is hidden from His sight. This is the God we worship, trust, and serve – not a limited deity who must wait to see what tomorrow brings, but the eternal, all-knowing God who holds the future in His hands.

---

Bibliography

Primary Sources by Finis Jennings Dake

Dake, Finis Jennings. Ages and Dispensations. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., n.d.

________. Bible Truths Unmasked. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 1995.

________. God’s Plan for Man. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 1977.

________. Heavenly Hosts. Edited by David Patton. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 1995.

________. Revelation Expounded: Eternal Mysteries Simplified. 2nd ed. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 1948.

________. The Rapture and the Second Coming. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 1977.

________. The Truth about Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., n.d.

Secondary Sources on Open Theism

Boyd, Gregory A. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Pinnock, Clark H., Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Orthodox Theological Sources

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

Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library, 1950.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

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

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

Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1957.

Westminster Confession of Faith. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.