Finis Dake’s Theological Error on the Trinity: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction: The Stakes of Trinitarian Theology

The doctrine of the Trinity stands at the very heart of Christian faith. It is not merely a theological puzzle for academics to debate, but rather the foundational truth about who God is and how He relates to His creation. When we speak of the Trinity, we are speaking about the very nature of the God we worship, pray to, and stake our eternal destinies upon. Any deviation from the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is not a minor theological disagreement—it is a fundamental alteration of the Christian faith itself.

Throughout church history, various teachers and movements have attempted to explain or redefine the Trinity in ways that seemed more logical or comprehensible to human reason. Some, like the ancient Arians, denied the full deity of Christ. Others, like the Modalists, denied the distinction of persons within the Godhead. In the twentieth century, another significant departure emerged through the teachings of Finis Jennings Dake, whose influence continues to affect certain segments of Christianity today.

What makes Dake’s error particularly dangerous is not that he openly rejected the Trinity—quite the opposite. Dake consistently used the word “Trinity” and claimed to believe in it. However, as we will demonstrate through extensive quotations from his own works, Dake fundamentally redefined what the Trinity means, teaching instead a form of tritheism that orthodox Christianity has always rejected as heretical.

Part I: The Orthodox Christian Doctrine of the Trinity

Before examining Dake’s teachings, we must first establish what conservative, orthodox Christianity has always meant by the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine, refined and articulated through centuries of biblical study and theological reflection, represents the church’s understanding of how Scripture reveals God’s nature.

The Biblical Foundation

The doctrine of the Trinity emerges from the totality of biblical revelation. The Old Testament firmly establishes monotheism—the belief in one God. The Shema, Judaism’s central confession of faith found in Deuteronomy 6:4, declares: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” This foundational truth is repeated throughout Scripture. Isaiah 44:6 states, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'”

Yet alongside this uncompromising monotheism, Scripture also reveals distinctions within the Godhead. The New Testament clearly presents Jesus Christ as fully God (John 1:1, 20:28; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8) while maintaining His distinction from the Father. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is presented as a divine person, distinct from both Father and Son, yet fully God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11; Hebrews 9:14).

The challenge for the early church was to articulate how these biblical truths fit together: How can God be one, yet Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God? The answer is the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Classic Formulation

The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in several key affirmations:

The Importance of Divine Simplicity and Omnipresence

Central to the orthodox understanding of the Trinity is the doctrine of divine simplicity—the teaching that God is not composed of parts. God does not have a body that exists in one location while His spirit exists in another. God is spirit (John 4:24), and as such, He is not limited by physical or spatial constraints.

This leads directly to the attribute of omnipresence—God’s ability to be fully present everywhere at once. Psalm 139:7-10 beautifully expresses this truth: “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.”

The omnipresence of God is not merely His ability to see or know what happens everywhere (though He certainly does). Rather, God is actually and fully present in every location. This is possible precisely because God is spirit and not confined to a physical body that can only be in one place at a time.

The Unity of the Trinity

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of Trinitarian doctrine is the absolute unity of the three persons. They are not three Gods working together in harmony; they are one God. The unity of the Trinity is not merely a unity of purpose or agreement, but a unity of being or essence. As the Athanasian Creed states: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.”

This unity means that the three persons of the Trinity share all the divine attributes. They are co-eternal, co-equal, and co-substantial. They share the same will, the same power, the same knowledge, and the same glory. When we see the Son, we see the Father (John 14:9). The Spirit searches the deep things of God because He shares the very mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-11).

The doctrine of perichoresis or circumincession further explains this unity. This teaching holds that the three persons of the Trinity mutually indwell one another. Jesus speaks of this in John 14:10-11: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

Part II: Dake’s Redefinition of the Trinity

Having established what orthodox Christianity means by the Trinity, we now turn to examine what Finis Dake actually taught. It is crucial to note that Dake frequently used the term “Trinity” and claimed to believe in it. However, as we will see through extensive quotations from his own works, Dake’s “Trinity” bears little resemblance to the orthodox doctrine we have just outlined.

The Physical Bodies of the Trinity

Perhaps the most fundamental departure from orthodox theology in Dake’s teaching is his insistence that each person of the Trinity possesses a separate physical body. This is not a minor detail but a complete reconceptualization of the nature of God.

Notice how Dake explicitly defines the Trinity as three “separate and distinct persons as to individuality.” This is not the language of orthodox Trinitarianism, which maintains distinction of persons but unity of essence.

Dake becomes even more explicit about his belief in the physical, bodily nature of each person of the Trinity:

This is a radical departure from orthodox theology. Dake is asserting that God the Father has a body, God the Son has a body, and God the Holy Spirit has a body—three separate bodies for three separate beings. This is not Trinitarianism; this is tritheism.

Dake’s Denial of Divine Omnipresence

Logically following from his belief that each person of the Trinity has a separate physical body, Dake must then deny the classical Christian doctrine of divine omnipresence. If God has a body that exists in one location, He cannot be fully present everywhere.

Dake addresses this directly in his Study Bible notes:

Here Dake explicitly states that God “is omnipresent, but not omnipresent” (which appears to be a typographical error where he likely meant to write something like “omnipotent but not omnipresent”). The context makes clear he is denying God’s omnipresence, stating that God must travel “from place to place” in chariots.

He makes this even clearer in another note:

This teaching represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God. By insisting that God has a physical body that can only be in one place at a time, Dake has reduced God to the level of a created being, albeit a very powerful one. This is precisely the kind of anthropomorphism (attributing human characteristics to God) that orthodox theology has always rejected.

Three Separate Thrones in Heaven

Consistent with his teaching of three separate divine beings with three separate bodies, Dake also teaches that there are three separate thrones in heaven—one for each member of his “Trinity.”

This image of three thrones with three separate beings sitting on them is not found anywhere in Scripture when properly interpreted. While Revelation does speak of Christ sitting with the Father on His throne (Revelation 3:21), this is understood in orthodox theology as expressing the shared authority and glory of the Father and Son, not as two separate beings occupying separate pieces of furniture.

The Inability of the Persons to Indwell Each Other

One of the most telling aspects of Dake’s theology is his explicit denial that the persons of the Trinity can truly indwell one another. This directly contradicts Jesus’s own words in John 14:10-11, where He states that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him.

And even more explicitly:

Dake further elaborates on this in his discussion of what he calls “interpenetration”:

This teaching fundamentally misunderstands the biblical concept of divine indwelling. When Jesus says “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10), He is not speaking merely of agreement or common purpose. He is expressing the profound unity of the Trinity—a unity that Dake’s theology cannot accommodate.

The Hierarchical Separation of the Trinity

Another significant aspect of Dake’s departure from orthodox Trinitarianism is his teaching of a permanent hierarchy within the Godhead that goes beyond the economic Trinity (the different roles the persons take in redemption) to suggest an ontological inequality.

While orthodox theology acknowledges that the Son submits to the Father in His role as mediator and that there is an order within the Trinity, it maintains that all three persons are co-equal in their divine nature. Dake’s language suggests something different—a permanent subordination that extends to the very nature of the persons.

Part III: The Implications of Dake’s Teaching

The implications of Dake’s redefinition of the Trinity are far-reaching and deeply concerning from an orthodox Christian perspective. By teaching that the three persons of the Trinity are three separate beings with three separate bodies, Dake has not merely modified the doctrine of the Trinity—he has abandoned it entirely in favor of tritheism.

The Problem of Tritheism

Tritheism—the belief in three Gods—has been consistently rejected by Christianity since its earliest days. The church fathers who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity were careful to distinguish their position from both modalism (which denies the distinction of persons) and tritheism (which denies the unity of essence).

When Dake teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have separate bodies and cannot be in the same place at the same time, he is teaching that there are three Gods, not one God in three persons. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it strikes at the very heart of Christian monotheism.

Consider the implications: If there are three separate divine beings with three separate bodies, then:

These questions reveal the fundamental incoherence of Dake’s position when measured against Scripture.

The Reduction of God to a Created Being

Perhaps even more serious than the problem of tritheism is how Dake’s teaching reduces God to the level of a created being. By insisting that God has a physical body that can only be in one place at a time, Dake has made God subject to the limitations of space and time—limitations that apply to creatures, not to the Creator.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is spirit (John 4:24) and that He transcends the physical universe He created. He is not bound by space or time; rather, space and time exist within Him. As Paul declared to the Athenians, “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

When Dake teaches that God must travel from place to place in chariots, he has reduced the infinite, omnipresent God to a finite, local deity—powerful perhaps, but not truly God in the biblical sense. This is not merely a different interpretation; it is a different God altogether.

The Problem of Biblical Interpretation

One of the most troubling aspects of Dake’s teaching is how he handles biblical passages that speak of God in anthropomorphic terms. The Bible often uses human language to describe God’s activities—it speaks of God’s hands, eyes, and feet; it describes God as walking, sitting, and standing. Orthodox theology has always understood these as anthropomorphisms—human descriptions used to help us understand God’s actions, not literal descriptions of God’s physical form.

Dake, however, takes these descriptions literally, insisting that God actually has hands, feet, and a body just like a human being. This represents a fundamental failure in biblical hermeneutics. If we take every anthropomorphic description of God literally, we end up with absurd contradictions. For instance:

Clearly, the Bible uses figurative language to communicate spiritual truths. Dake’s hyper-literalistic approach to anthropomorphic passages leads him into serious theological error.

The Impact on Worship and Prayer

Dake’s theology has practical implications for Christian worship and prayer. If the three persons of the Trinity are three separate beings who cannot all be present in the same place at the same time, how does this affect our worship?

When we gather for worship, orthodox Christianity teaches that we are in the presence of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father hears our prayers, the Son mediates for us, and the Spirit helps us in our weakness. All three persons are fully present and active.

But according to Dake’s theology, only one member of the Trinity can be physically present at any given time. The others might be aware of what’s happening (through some form of divine communication), but they cannot be actually present. This fundamentally alters the nature of Christian worship.

Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit has a physical body that can only be in one place, how can He indwell all believers simultaneously as Scripture teaches (1 Corinthians 6:19)? Dake attempts to explain this by saying the Spirit doesn’t really indwell believers in a literal sense, but this contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture.

Part IV: Examining Dake’s Specific Arguments

To fully understand the depth of Dake’s departure from orthodox Christianity, we must examine some of his specific arguments and the biblical passages he uses to support them. This examination will reveal not only the errors in his theology but also the flawed hermeneutical methods that led him to these conclusions.

The “Image of God” Argument

One of Dake’s primary arguments for God having a physical body is based on Genesis 1:26-27, which states that man was created in the image of God. Dake argues that since man has a physical body, and man was created in God’s image, therefore God must have a physical body.

This argument fails on multiple levels:

First, it contradicts explicit biblical statements that God is spirit (John 4:24) and that He is invisible (Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). If God has a physical body like humans, He cannot be invisible.

Second, it misunderstands what the “image of God” means. Throughout church history, theologians have understood the image of God to refer primarily to man’s spiritual qualities—reason, will, moral capacity, creativity, and the ability to have relationship with God. The image of God distinguishes humans from animals, but animals also have physical bodies. What makes humans unique is not their physical form but their spiritual capacities.

Third, if the image of God is primarily physical, then do people with physical disabilities or deformities have less of God’s image? This would be an abhorrent conclusion, but it follows logically from Dake’s position.

Fourth, Colossians 1:15 calls Christ “the image of the invisible God.” If being God’s image means having a physical body like God’s physical body, how can Christ be the image of an invisible God? The contradiction is obvious.

The Theophanies Argument

Dake frequently appeals to Old Testament theophanies (appearances of God) as proof that God has a physical body. He points to passages where people saw God or where God appeared in human form.

This argument demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of theophanies. Orthodox theology has always understood theophanies as temporary manifestations of God, not revelations of God’s essential nature. God, who is spirit, can manifest Himself in physical form for specific purposes without being essentially physical.

Consider the burning bush in Exodus 3. God appeared to Moses in a flame of fire within a bush. Does this mean God is essentially fire? Of course not. It was a manifestation, not a revelation of God’s essential nature.

Moreover, the Bible explicitly states that no one has seen God in His essential nature. John 1:18 declares, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” 1 Timothy 6:16 says God “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see.”

When Moses asked to see God’s glory in Exodus 33:18-23, God told him, “You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” God allowed Moses to see His “back” but not His “face”—anthropomorphic language describing a partial revelation of God’s glory, not a literal view of God’s physical anatomy.

The “Bodily Fullness” Argument

Dake frequently cites Colossians 2:9, which states that in Christ “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,” as proof that deity itself has a body. He argues that if the fullness of deity dwells bodily in Christ, then deity (including the Father and the Spirit) must inherently be bodily.

This represents a serious misreading of Paul’s point. Paul is not saying that deity is inherently bodily; rather, he is making the astounding claim that in the incarnation, the fullness of deity has taken up residence in a human body—the body of Jesus Christ. This is what makes the incarnation unique and miraculous.

If deity were inherently bodily, the incarnation would not be special. It would simply be one bodily deity taking on another body, which makes no sense. The wonder of the incarnation is precisely that the infinite, incorporeal God took on human flesh: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

The “Throne Room” Argument

Dake makes much of biblical visions of God’s throne room, particularly in Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, and Revelation 4. He argues that these visions prove God has a literal body sitting on a literal throne in a literal location in heaven.

While it’s true that heaven is real and not merely symbolic, Dake fails to recognize that visions of heavenly realities are accommodated to human understanding. God reveals Himself in ways we can comprehend, using imagery familiar to us.

The prophets themselves often struggled to describe what they saw, using phrases like “the appearance of,” “something like,” and “as it were.” Ezekiel says he saw “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD” (Ezekiel 1:28)—note the careful qualifications. He’s not claiming to see God as He essentially is, but rather a visionary representation of God’s glory.

Furthermore, different prophets describe the throne room differently. Isaiah sees seraphim with six wings; Ezekiel sees cherubim with four faces and four wings; John sees four living creatures with different features. If these were literal descriptions of physical realities, they should all match. The variations suggest these are visionary representations, not photographs of heaven.

Part V: The Historical Context of Dake’s Errors

To fully understand how Dake arrived at his erroneous views, it’s helpful to consider the historical and theological context in which he developed his teachings. Dake was part of the early Pentecostal movement, which emphasized direct, experiential knowledge of God and often favored literal, plain-sense readings of Scripture over traditional theological interpretations.

The Influence of Dispensationalism

Dake was strongly influenced by dispensationalism, a theological system that emphasizes literal interpretation of biblical prophecy and draws sharp distinctions between different periods of God’s dealings with humanity. While dispensationalism itself doesn’t necessarily lead to Dake’s errors about the Trinity, its emphasis on literalism may have contributed to his hyper-literal reading of anthropomorphic passages.

Dispensationalists pride themselves on taking the Bible literally whenever possible. This is generally a good principle, but it requires wisdom to discern when the Bible is using figurative language. Dake seems to have lacked this discernment, taking literally what should be understood figuratively.

The Rejection of Traditional Theology

The early Pentecostal movement, of which Dake was a part, often positioned itself in opposition to “dead” traditional Christianity. There was a suspicion of academic theology and a preference for “Spirit-led” interpretation of Scripture. While there’s value in fresh examination of Scripture, this attitude sometimes led to a dismissal of centuries of careful theological reflection.

Dake seems to have believed that traditional theology had obscured the plain meaning of Scripture with philosophical speculation. He writes dismissively of those who “spiritualize” clear biblical texts. But in his zeal to take the Bible literally, he failed to recognize that some biblical language is intentionally figurative or anthropomorphic.

The Influence of Materialism

Ironically, while Dake would certainly reject philosophical materialism (the belief that only material things exist), his theology shows its influence. He seems unable to conceive of truly spiritual existence—everything must have a body, even God and the Holy Spirit.

This may reflect the broader cultural context of early 20th-century America, where scientific materialism was challenging traditional religious beliefs. Perhaps in an attempt to make Christianity more “concrete” and “real” in the face of materialist challenges, Dake ended up materializing God Himself.

Part VI: The Continuing Influence of Dake’s Teachings

Despite the clear departures from orthodox Christianity in his theology, Dake’s influence continues to this day. The Dake Annotated Reference Bible remains popular in certain circles, and many Christians study his notes without realizing the serious theological errors they contain.

The Appeal of Dake’s Teaching

Why do Dake’s teachings continue to attract followers? Several factors contribute to their appeal:

Simplicity: Dake’s theology is easier to understand than orthodox Trinitarianism. Three separate beings with three separate bodies is conceptually simpler than one God in three persons. But theological truth is not determined by simplicity. The Trinity is a mystery that transcends human reason, and attempts to make it fully comprehensible often lead to heresy.

Literalism: For those who value literal interpretation of Scripture, Dake’s approach seems to take the Bible more seriously than those who recognize anthropomorphisms and figurative language. But true faithfulness to Scripture requires understanding it as the original authors intended, not imposing a wooden literalism that the text doesn’t support.

Tangibility: Dake’s God is more tangible and relatable than the infinite, omnipresent God of orthodox Christianity. A God with a body who travels from place to place seems more comprehensible than a God who is spirit and omnipresent. But reducing God to our level doesn’t make Him more real; it makes Him less than God.

Apparent Biblical Support: Dake cites numerous Scripture verses to support his views, giving the impression of strong biblical foundation. But citing verses is not the same as correctly interpreting them. Even Satan quoted Scripture when tempting Jesus (Matthew 4:6), but he misapplied it.

The Danger to the Church

The continuing influence of Dake’s teachings poses a serious danger to the church. Christians who unknowingly absorb his theology may find themselves believing in three Gods rather than one, without realizing they’ve departed from biblical Christianity.

This is particularly dangerous because Dake uses Christian terminology. He speaks of the Trinity, quotes Scripture extensively, and affirms many orthodox doctrines. Someone reading his work casually might not notice the fundamental redefinitions taking place. It’s only through careful examination that the full extent of his departure from orthodoxy becomes clear.

Furthermore, those influenced by Dake’s teachings may spread these errors to others, not realizing they’re propagating heresy. Well-meaning Christians might teach Sunday school lessons or lead Bible studies using Dake’s notes, inadvertently leading others into theological error.

The Response of Dake’s Defenders

Defenders of Dake often argue that he’s been misunderstood or that his critics are taking his statements out of context. They point to places where Dake affirms belief in the Trinity or uses orthodox-sounding language.

However, as we’ve seen through extensive quotations, Dake’s redefinition of the Trinity is not a matter of misunderstanding or out-of-context quotation. He explicitly and repeatedly teaches that the three persons of the Trinity have three separate bodies and cannot be in the same place at the same time. He explicitly denies that they can indwell one another in any real sense. These are not peripheral comments but central aspects of his theology, repeated throughout his works.

Some defenders argue that Dake was simply emphasizing the distinction of persons within the Trinity, which is orthodox. But Dake goes far beyond affirming distinction; he teaches separation. Orthodox theology maintains that the three persons are distinct but not separate—they share one divine essence. Dake teaches three separate beings who merely cooperate together.

Part VII: Responding to Specific Defenses of Dake

Given the continued popularity of Dake’s writings, it’s important to address some of the specific defenses his supporters offer. By examining these arguments, we can better understand both the appeal of Dake’s teaching and its fundamental flaws.

Defense 1: “Dake Believed in the Trinity”

The most common defense of Dake is simply to point out that he used the word “Trinity” and claimed to believe in it. His defenders argue that this proves he was orthodox in his theology.

Response: Using the word “Trinity” means nothing if you redefine it to mean something completely different from its historical, biblical meaning. Jehovah’s Witnesses also use biblical terminology but redefine it to fit their theology. Mormons speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but teach that they are three separate Gods. The question is not whether Dake used the word “Trinity” but what he meant by it.

As we’ve seen, Dake explicitly defines the Trinity as “three separate and distinct persons as to individuality” with separate bodies who cannot be in the same place at the same time. This is not the Trinity of biblical, orthodox Christianity—it is tritheism.

Defense 2: “Dake Was Just Being Literal”

Some defend Dake by saying he was simply taking the Bible literally, which is what all Christians should do. They argue that those who criticize Dake are the ones departing from Scripture by “spiritualizing” clear biblical texts.

Response: While we should indeed take the Bible seriously and literally where appropriate, we must also recognize when the Bible uses figurative language. Jesus said “I am the door” (John 10:9), but no one thinks He’s made of wood with hinges. The Bible says God will cover us with His feathers (Psalm 91:4), but this doesn’t mean God is a bird.

The key is to interpret Scripture according to its literary genre and context. When the Bible uses anthropomorphic language about God, it’s accommodating to human understanding, not providing a physical description of God’s essence. This isn’t “spiritualizing” the text—it’s reading it as intended.

Defense 3: “The Trinity Is Three Persons”

Defenders sometimes argue that Dake was simply emphasizing that the Trinity consists of three persons, which is orthodox. They claim critics are confusing “person” with “being” and that Dake was merely maintaining proper distinctions.

Response: Orthodox theology does indeed teach three persons in one being. But Dake goes much further. He teaches three persons with three separate beings, three separate bodies, three separate locations. Look at his own words: each person has “a personal body, soul, and spirit, which are separate and distinct from all others.” This is not maintaining proper distinctions—it’s teaching three Gods.

The orthodox doctrine maintains that the three persons share one divine essence or being. They are distinct in their personhood but one in their essential nature. Dake denies this, teaching instead three separate beings who merely work together.

Defense 4: “God Appeared in the Old Testament”

Some defend Dake’s position by pointing to Old Testament theophanies where God appeared to people. They argue that if God could be seen, He must have a body.

Response: God’s ability to manifest Himself visibly doesn’t mean He essentially has a physical body. God can appear in any form He chooses—as fire, cloud, or human form—without being essentially physical. These are accommodations to human perception, not revelations of God’s essential nature.

Furthermore, Scripture explicitly states that no one has seen God in His essential nature (John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16). The theophanies were partial, accommodated revelations, not full views of God’s essence.

Defense 5: “This Is Just Theological Hair-Splitting”

Some dismiss the controversy as theological hair-splitting that doesn’t affect practical Christian living. They argue that as long as someone believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the precise theological formulation doesn’t matter.

Response: The nature of God is not a trivial matter. If we worship three Gods instead of one, we’re not practicing biblical Christianity but a form of polytheism. This affects everything from our understanding of salvation to our worship practices.

Moreover, Jesus said eternal life consists in knowing the true God (John 17:3). If we have a fundamentally wrong conception of who God is, how can we truly know Him? The early church considered the Trinity so important that they were willing to suffer and die rather than compromise on it.

Part VIII: The Biblical Evidence Against Dake’s Position

While we’ve already touched on various biblical passages, it’s important to systematically examine the scriptural evidence that contradicts Dake’s teaching. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture supports the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and contradicts Dake’s tritheistic teaching.

The Unity of God

Scripture repeatedly and emphatically declares that there is only one God:

These passages don’t say there is one “Godhead” composed of three Gods, or that three Gods work together as one. They say there is one God, period. Dake’s teaching of three separate divine beings with three separate bodies contradicts this fundamental biblical truth.

The Spiritual Nature of God

Scripture explicitly teaches that God is spirit, not physical:

If God has a physical body as Dake teaches, He cannot be invisible. If He has flesh and bones, He is not spirit. Dake’s teaching directly contradicts these clear biblical statements.

The Omnipresence of God

Scripture teaches that God is omnipresent—fully present everywhere simultaneously:

Dake explicitly denies divine omnipresence, teaching that God must travel from place to place because His body can only be in one location at a time. This directly contradicts these scriptures.

The Mutual Indwelling of the Trinity

Jesus explicitly teaches that the persons of the Trinity dwell in one another:

Dake explicitly denies that the persons of the Trinity can truly indwell one another, claiming they can only be united in purpose. But Jesus’s language goes far beyond mere agreement or cooperation—He speaks of mutual indwelling.

The Equality and Unity of Divine Attributes

Scripture attributes the same divine attributes to all three persons of the Trinity, indicating they share the same divine nature:

Omniscience:

• The Father knows all things (1 John 3:20)
• The Son knows all things (John 16:30; 21:17)
• The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)

Omnipotence:

• The Father is almighty (Revelation 1:8)
• The Son upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3)
• The Spirit’s power is infinite (Luke 1:35; Romans 15:19)

Eternality:

• The Father is eternal (Psalm 90:2)
• The Son is eternal (John 1:1; Hebrews 13:8)
• The Spirit is eternal (Hebrews 9:14)

If the three persons were three separate beings as Dake teaches, they could not all possess these infinite attributes. There cannot be three separate omniscient beings or three separate omnipotent beings. These attributes belong to the one divine nature that all three persons share.

Part IX: The Theological Consequences of Dake’s Teaching

The errors in Dake’s theology don’t exist in isolation. His redefinition of the Trinity has cascading effects on other crucial Christian doctrines. Understanding these consequences helps us see why maintaining orthodox Trinitarian theology is so important.

Impact on the Doctrine of Salvation

Orthodox Christianity teaches that salvation is the work of the triune God. The Father planned our salvation, the Son accomplished it through His death and resurrection, and the Spirit applies it to our hearts. All three persons work together in perfect unity because they are one God.

But if Dake is correct and there are three separate Gods, several problems arise:

First, which God saves us? If they are three separate beings, do they all have to agree to save someone? Could they theoretically disagree?

Second, the infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice depends on His being truly God. Only God could pay the infinite penalty for sin. But if Christ is a separate God from the Father, did the Father punish a different God for our sins? This makes no sense theologically or morally.

Third, Scripture teaches that the Spirit indwells all believers (1 Corinthians 6:19). But if the Spirit has a physical body that can only be in one place, as Dake teaches, how can He indwell millions of believers simultaneously?

Impact on the Doctrine of Revelation

Jesus said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). In orthodox theology, this makes perfect sense—the Son reveals the Father because they share the same divine nature. The Son is the perfect image of the Father because they are one God.

But in Dake’s theology, where the Father and Son are two separate beings with separate bodies in separate locations, how can seeing one mean seeing the other? At best, the Son could tell us about the Father, but He couldn’t truly reveal Him in His own person.

Similarly, Jesus said the Spirit would take what is His and declare it to us (John 16:14-15). But if the Spirit is a separate being from Christ, He can only report about Christ, not truly manifest Christ’s presence to us.

Impact on Prayer and Worship

Christians pray to the Father through the Son in the power of the Spirit. This Trinitarian pattern of prayer makes sense if the three persons are one God. We’re not praying to three different Gods but approaching the one God in the way He has revealed.

But if Dake is correct, are we praying to three Gods? Should we pray to each one separately? Can only one of them hear us at a time since they can each only be in one place?

Furthermore, worship belongs to God alone. If there are three separate Gods, as Dake teaches, then Christianity is polytheistic, worshiping three deities. This contradicts the First Commandment and the fundamental monotheism of biblical faith.

Impact on the Incarnation

The incarnation—God becoming man in Jesus Christ—is the central miracle of Christianity. Orthodox theology teaches that the eternal Son, who is fully God, took on human nature while remaining fully divine.

But in Dake’s system, where the Son already has a body before the incarnation, what exactly happened at the incarnation? Did a being who already had one body take on a second body? Dake’s teaching makes the incarnation incoherent.

Moreover, if the Son always had a body separate from the Father, then He was always distinct from the Father in a way that makes their unity impossible. The incarnation becomes not the Word becoming flesh, but one physical being taking on additional physicality.

Part X: How Dake’s Teaching Developed

Understanding how Dake arrived at his erroneous views can help us avoid similar mistakes in our own biblical interpretation. Several factors seem to have contributed to his theological errors.

Hyper-Literalism

The most obvious factor in Dake’s errors is his extreme literalism in interpreting Scripture. While believing in the literal truth of Scripture is essential to Christian faith, this doesn’t mean taking every statement in a woodenly literal way without regard to literary genre or context.

The Bible contains various types of literature—historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, parables, apocalyptic visions, and more. Each genre has its own conventions and must be interpreted accordingly. When the Psalms speak of God’s wings or feathers, they’re using poetic imagery. When Revelation describes visions with symbolic numbers and fantastic creatures, it’s using apocalyptic symbolism.

Dake seems to have flattened all these distinctions, reading everything as if it were literal historical narrative. This led him to conclude that God literally has hands, feet, and a body that moves from place to place.

Insufficient Theological Training

While formal theological education is not necessary for understanding the Bible’s basic message, dealing with complex doctrines like the Trinity benefits from awareness of historical theology and the church’s reflection on these matters over centuries.

Dake seems to have been largely self-taught in theology, and while he was clearly intelligent and devoted to Scripture, he apparently lacked familiarity with the historical development of Trinitarian doctrine and the reasons why certain formulations were rejected as heretical.

The early church spent centuries working out the precise language to express biblical truth about the Trinity. They did this not out of love for philosophical speculation but because various false teachings arose that threatened the gospel itself. Dake, apparently unaware of or dismissive of this history, repeated errors that the church had dealt with centuries ago.

Rationalistic Tendencies

Ironically, while Dake prided himself on simple biblical literalism, his theology shows rationalistic tendencies—the desire to make everything logically comprehensible to human reason. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity acknowledges mystery; we confess that God’s nature transcends our full comprehension.

Dake seems uncomfortable with this mystery. His solution—three separate beings with three separate bodies—is much easier to understand. It eliminates the paradox of three-in-one. But in making God comprehensible, Dake has made Him less than God.

True faith accepts that God’s nature transcends human understanding. As Isaiah 55:8-9 declares, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares 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.'”

Isolation from Theological Accountability

Another factor that may have contributed to Dake’s errors was his apparent isolation from theological accountability. While he was part of the Pentecostal movement, he seems to have developed his theology largely independently, without submitting his ideas to broader theological scrutiny.

The history of Christian doctrine shows the importance of theological community. Iron sharpens iron, and theologians need other theologians to challenge their ideas, point out potential errors, and help refine their thinking. Dake’s radical departures from orthodoxy might have been corrected if he had been more open to theological dialogue and correction.

Conclusion: The Importance of Orthodox Trinitarianism

As we conclude this extensive examination of Dake’s theological errors, it’s important to reflect on why this matters. Why is it so important to maintain the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? Why can’t we simply agree to disagree on these theological fine points?

The answer is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a peripheral issue but the foundation of Christian faith. It answers the most fundamental question: Who is God? Our answer to this question affects everything else in our theology and practice.

The Trinity and the Gospel

The gospel itself depends on the Trinity. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are not one God, then the Father did not give Himself for our salvation in the Son. Instead, one God punished another God, which would be cosmic injustice rather than divine love.

Furthermore, if Christ is not fully God—one with the Father—then His death cannot have infinite value to atone for the sins of all who believe. And if the Spirit is not God, then He cannot truly unite us to Christ and transform us into His image.

The gospel is Trinitarian from beginning to end: the Father sends the Son, the Son accomplishes redemption, and the Spirit applies it to our hearts. All three persons work together because they are one God, united in their love for humanity and their purpose to save.

The Trinity and Worship

Christian worship is inherently Trinitarian. We worship the Father through the Son in the power of the Spirit. We baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We sing praise to all three persons while maintaining that we worship one God.

If Dake’s theology were correct, Christian worship would be idolatrous polytheism. We would be worshiping three Gods rather than one, violating the First Commandment. But because the three persons are one God, we can worship all three while remaining faithful monotheists.

The Trinity and Christian Experience

The Trinity is not merely an abstract doctrine but a reality we experience in Christian life. We experience the Father’s love, the Son’s redemption, and the Spirit’s transformation. Yet we don’t experience three different Gods but one God in three persons.

When we pray, we don’t have to wonder which person of the Trinity is listening or whether they’re all in agreement. We approach one God who hears us perfectly. When we worship, we don’t have to divide our attention between three separate beings. We worship one God who reveals Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit.

A Call for Discernment

The continuing influence of Dake’s teaching reminds us of the need for theological discernment in the church. We cannot assume that because someone uses biblical language and cites Scripture extensively, they are teaching biblical truth. We must examine not just what terms they use but what they mean by those terms.

This requires knowing what we believe and why we believe it. It requires understanding not just that we believe in the Trinity but what the Trinity means and why alternatives like modalism or tritheism are errors. It requires being grounded in Scripture while also learning from the church’s historical reflection on Scripture.

Churches and Christian leaders have a responsibility to teach sound doctrine and to warn against errors like those found in Dake’s theology. This isn’t about being divisive or nitpicking over minor points; it’s about preserving the essential truths of the Christian faith.

Final Reflections

Finis Jennings Dake was undoubtedly a sincere and devoted student of Scripture. His annotated Bible reflects countless hours of study and a genuine desire to understand God’s Word. We should not question his sincerity or his devotion to Christ.

However, sincerity is not enough. It’s possible to be sincerely wrong, and in matters as fundamental as the nature of God, being wrong has serious consequences. Dake’s redefinition of the Trinity, whether intentional or not, represents a departure from biblical Christianity into a form of tritheism that the church has consistently rejected.

Those who have been influenced by Dake’s teaching need to carefully reconsider their theology in light of Scripture and the historic Christian faith. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity—one God in three persons—is not a human invention but the church’s faithful summary of biblical revelation.

As we close this examination, let us return to the biblical affirmation that stands at the heart of our faith: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This one God has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—three distinct persons sharing one divine essence, forever to be praised, worshiped, and adored.

May we hold fast to this biblical truth, rejecting all departures from it, whether they come in the form of ancient heresies or modern innovations. May we worship the triune God in spirit and truth, knowing that in Him—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—we have eternal life.