Finis Dake’s Theological Errors in “God’s Plan for Man”

Source: Dake, Finis Jennings. God’s Plan for Man. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1949.

Introduction: Understanding Dake’s Departures from Orthodox Christianity

Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987) was a Pentecostal minister who produced the widely-used Dake Annotated Reference Bible. While his Bible contains helpful study notes, his systematic theology book “God’s Plan for Man” reveals numerous serious theological errors that place him outside mainstream Christian orthodoxy. This comprehensive review examines these errors systematically, comparing Dake’s teachings with historic Christian doctrine.

The most significant issue with Dake’s theology is that while he uses traditional Christian terminology like “Trinity,” “omniscient,” and “omnipresent,” he systematically redefines these terms in ways that fundamentally alter their meaning. This creates confusion because readers may assume Dake is teaching orthodox doctrine when he is actually promoting ideas that the Christian church has consistently rejected as heretical.

This review groups Dake’s errors into major theological categories, provides direct quotations from his work with specific citations, and offers biblical responses from a conservative Christian perspective. The goal is not to attack Dake personally but to help readers understand where his teachings deviate from biblical truth and why these deviations matter for our understanding of God, Christ, and salvation.

Part I: Dake’s Tri-theistic Errors – Teaching Three Separate Gods Instead of the Trinity

The Most Serious Error: Denying the Trinity

The most fundamental and serious theological error in Dake’s system is his rejection of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity in favor of tri-theism – the belief in three separate Gods rather than one God in three persons. While Dake uses the word “Trinity,” he completely redefines it to mean something entirely different from what Christians have believed for nearly two millennia.

While this definition might initially appear orthodox, Dake’s subsequent explanations reveal that by “one in unity” he means merely that three completely separate divine beings work together cooperatively, not that they share one divine essence. This becomes devastatingly clear in his further teachings:

Here Dake explicitly rejects the orthodox Christian teaching. He misrepresents the Trinity doctrine (Christians don’t teach “three persons in one person” but rather three persons in one being or essence) and then calls the actual Trinity doctrine “ridiculous.” This is not a minor disagreement but a fundamental rejection of core Christian theology.

Teaching That Each Person of the Godhead Has a Separate Body

Dake goes even further in his tri-theistic teaching by insisting that each member of what he calls the “Godhead” has a completely separate physical body:

This teaching reveals the full extent of Dake’s departure from Christianity. He is not teaching about one God who exists as three persons sharing one divine essence, but about three completely separate beings with three separate bodies who happen to work together. This is polytheism, not monotheism.

Claiming Multiple Gods Can Be Seen Separately

Dake attempts to support his tri-theistic view by claiming that multiple divine persons have been seen with separate bodies at the same time:

Conservative Christian Response to Dake’s Tri-theism

The doctrine of the Trinity is not, as Dake claims, “ridiculous” or “unscriptural.” It is the careful articulation of what Scripture teaches about God’s nature, refined through centuries of biblical study and theological reflection. The Trinity doctrine states that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – who share one divine essence or being.

Biblical Evidence for One God, Not Three:

Scripture is abundantly clear that there is only one God, not three:

• Deuteronomy 6:4 – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” This is the Shema, the foundational confession of Jewish and Christian monotheism.
• Isaiah 43:10 – “Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”
• Isaiah 44:6 – “I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.”
• Isaiah 45:5 – “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.”
• 1 Timothy 2:5 – “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.”
• James 2:19 – “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”

These verses cannot be reconciled with Dake’s teaching of three separate Gods. The Bible’s insistence on monotheism is absolute and uncompromising. Any teaching that suggests there are three Gods, even if they work in perfect unity, is a rejection of biblical monotheism and constitutes polytheism.

Dake’s Teaching	Orthodox Christian Teaching	Supporting Scripture
Three separate and distinct beings who are “one” only in unity of purpose	One God eternally existing as three distinct persons sharing one divine essence	Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14
Each person of the “Godhead” has a separate body, soul, and spirit	God is spirit (John 4:24) and does not have a physical body except in the incarnation of Christ	John 4:24; Luke 24:39; 1 Tim. 6:16
The Trinity means three Gods working together	The Trinity means one God in three persons	1 John 5:7; Matt. 3:16-17

Part II: Errors Concerning God’s Nature and Attributes

Teaching That God Has a Physical Body with Limitations

One of Dake’s most persistent errors is his insistence that God the Father has a literal, physical body similar to a human body. This teaching fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.

Dake’s argument rests on taking anthropomorphic language in Scripture literally. Anthropomorphism is a literary device where human characteristics are attributed to God to help us understand Him, not to describe His actual physical form. When the Bible speaks of God’s “hand” or “eyes,” it’s using figurative language to describe God’s power and knowledge in terms we can understand.

Limiting God’s Omnipresence

Because Dake believes God has a physical body, he must necessarily limit God’s omnipresence. He redefines omnipresence to mean something entirely different from what Christians have always understood:

This is a shocking redefinition. Dake is saying that God is not actually everywhere present, but that His influence or “presence” can be felt everywhere while His body remains in one location in heaven. He even claims God “goes from place to place like anybody else.” This is not the God of the Bible but a limited, finite being.

Dake attempts to explain this by comparing it to human relationships:

Dake is reducing God’s omnipresence to mere emotional or mental connection, similar to how we might think about distant loved ones. This completely misses the biblical teaching that God is actually, truly, really present everywhere at all times, not just present in our thoughts or feelings.

Denying God’s Omniscience

Perhaps even more troubling is Dake’s denial of God’s complete knowledge of all things. He explicitly teaches that God does not know everything:

This is Open Theism, the belief that God doesn’t know the future exhaustively. Dake goes even further, suggesting God needs angels to report to Him about what’s happening in the universe:

Conservative Christian Response to Dake’s Limitations on God

Dake’s teachings about God’s nature and attributes represent a radical departure from biblical Christianity. The God of the Bible is not a limited being with a physical body who needs information from angels. Scripture teaches clearly about God’s true nature:

God is Spirit, Not Physical:

• John 4:24 – “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
• Luke 24:39 – Jesus specifically says “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” – if God is spirit, He does not have a physical body.
• 1 Timothy 6:16 – God “lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.”
• Colossians 1:15 – Christ is “the image of the invisible God” – God Himself is invisible.

God is Truly Omnipresent:

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

These verses teach that God is actually present everywhere, not just that His influence can be felt everywhere while His body remains in heaven.

God is Truly Omniscient:

• Psalm 147:5 – “Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.”
• Isaiah 46:9-10 – “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.”
• 1 John 3:20 – “God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.”
• Hebrews 4:13 – “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”

When Scripture uses anthropomorphic language about God “learning” or “discovering” something, it’s using accommodated language – speaking from a human perspective to help us understand the narrative. These passages don’t negate the clear teaching that God knows all things.

God’s Attribute	Dake’s Teaching	Biblical Teaching
Nature	God has a physical body with parts like humans	God is spirit (John 4:24)
Omnipresence	God’s body is in heaven; only His influence is everywhere	God is actually present everywhere (Psalm 139:7-10)
Omniscience	God learns things and needs angels to report to Him	God knows all things perfectly (1 John 3:20)
Omnipotence	God is limited and cannot do certain things	God is almighty; nothing is impossible for Him (Luke 1:37)

Part III: Errors Concerning the Person and Work of Christ

The Kenosis Error – Christ Completely Emptying Himself of Divine Attributes

Dake teaches an extreme form of kenotic theology, claiming that Christ completely divested Himself of all divine attributes when He became human. This goes far beyond the biblical teaching and creates serious theological problems:

Dake argues that Christ had no divine power or attributes during His earthly life:

Denying the Eternal Sonship of Christ

Dake also denies that Christ was the Son of God from eternity, teaching instead that He only became the Son at His incarnation:

Conservative Christian Response on Christology

Dake’s Christological errors stem from his failure to understand the mystery of the incarnation – that Christ is one person with two natures, fully God and fully man. The biblical teaching on the kenosis (Philippians 2:5-11) is not that Christ ceased to be God or lost His divine attributes, but that He voluntarily chose not to exercise certain divine prerogatives for the purpose of redemption.

The Biblical Teaching on the Kenosis:

Philippians 2:6-7 says Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant.” The emptying was not a subtraction of deity but an addition of humanity. Christ retained His divine nature while taking on human nature. He voluntarily limited the exercise of some divine attributes but never ceased being God:

• Colossians 2:9 – “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” – even during His earthly life.
• John 1:14 – “The Word became flesh” – He didn’t cease being the Word (God) when He became flesh.
• Hebrews 13:8 – “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” – He doesn’t change in His essential nature.

The Eternal Sonship of Christ:

Scripture clearly teaches that Christ was the Son of God from eternity:

• John 3:16 – God “gave his one and only Son” – He was already the Son when given.
• Galatians 4:4 – “God sent his Son” – He was the Son before being sent.
• 1 John 4:9 – “God sent his only Son into the world” – again, already the Son before coming.
• Hebrews 1:2 – God “has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe” – the Son was involved in creation.

Part IV: Errors Concerning the Holy Spirit

Teaching the Holy Spirit Has a Physical Body

Consistent with his tri-theistic theology, Dake teaches that the Holy Spirit, like the Father, has a separate physical body:

Dake argues that the Holy Spirit must have a body to be a real person:

Conservative Christian Response on the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is indeed a person, not merely a force or influence. However, being a person does not require having a physical body. The Holy Spirit is God, and God is spirit (John 4:24). The Spirit’s personhood is demonstrated through His personal attributes and actions, not through physicality:

• He has intellect (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)
• He has emotions (Ephesians 4:30)
• He has will (1 Corinthians 12:11)
• He speaks (Acts 13:2)
• He can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30)
• He can be lied to (Acts 5:3)

These personal characteristics prove the Spirit’s personhood without requiring a physical body. The Spirit’s ability to indwell believers (1 Corinthians 6:19) actually argues against His having a physical body – how could a being with a physical body dwell within millions of believers simultaneously?

Part V: Other Significant Theological Errors

Heaven as a Physical Planet

Dake teaches that heaven is literally a planet somewhere in physical space, and that God travels between planets:

Dake even speculates about looking at heaven through telescopes:

This materialistic view of heaven and God reduces the spiritual realm to mere physical locations in space, missing the transcendent nature of God’s dwelling place.

Pre-Adamite Race and Gap Theory

Dake teaches that there was a race of beings on earth before Adam, destroyed in a flood between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2:

While the Gap Theory has been held by some Christians, Dake’s version includes speculation about pre-Adamite races and multiple floods that go beyond what Scripture clearly teaches.

Angels Marrying Women and Producing Giants

Dake teaches that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels who married human women and produced giants:

While this interpretation has been held by some throughout church history, Dake’s insistence that angels have physical bodies that can reproduce with humans contradicts Jesus’ teaching that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30).

Part VI: The Implications of Dake’s Theological System

A Different God

The cumulative effect of Dake’s teachings is to present a god who is fundamentally different from the God revealed in Scripture and worshiped by Christians for two millennia. Dake’s god is:

• Not truly one, but three separate beings
• Not spirit, but physical with a body confined to one location
• Not omnipresent, but limited to being in one place at a time
• Not omniscient, but learning and discovering things
• Not transcendent, but living on a planet somewhere in space
• Not immutable, but changing and adapting to circumstances

This is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is not the God revealed in Jesus Christ. This is not the God whom Christians have worshiped throughout history. Dake has created a theological system that, despite using biblical terminology, presents a fundamentally different deity.

A Different Gospel

When we change our understanding of who God is, we inevitably change our understanding of salvation. If God is not truly omniscient, how can we trust His promises? If He is not omnipresent, how can He hear our prayers wherever we are? If He is not one but three, which one do we worship? If Christ divested Himself of deity, how could His sacrifice be of infinite value?

Dake’s theological errors, while perhaps not directly denying salvation by grace through faith, undermine the very foundation upon which the gospel rests – the nature and character of God Himself.

The Danger of Redefinition

One of the most insidious aspects of Dake’s teaching is his practice of using orthodox terminology while completely redefining the terms. He speaks of the “Trinity” while teaching tri-theism. He affirms God’s “omnipresence” while denying God is actually everywhere present. He discusses God’s “omniscience” while teaching God doesn’t know everything.

This redefinition creates confusion for readers who may assume they’re reading orthodox Christian teaching when they’re actually being taught something entirely different. It’s a reminder that we must not only pay attention to the words being used but also to how those words are being defined.

Part VII: Historical Context and Theological Assessment

Dake’s Place in Theological History

To properly understand Dake’s errors, it’s helpful to see them in historical context. The teachings Dake promotes are not new; they are ancient heresies that the church has repeatedly confronted and rejected:

Tri-theism: The early church faced similar challenges from those who couldn’t reconcile the unity and plurality of God. The Councils of Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) carefully articulated the doctrine of the Trinity specifically to reject both modalism (one God appearing in three modes) and tri-theism (three separate Gods).

Anthropomorphism: The church has long recognized that biblical language about God’s “hands,” “eyes,” and other body parts is metaphorical, intended to help us understand God’s actions and attributes in human terms. Taking these literally, as Dake does, leads to a finite, limited god.

Limited Knowledge of God: The church has consistently affirmed God’s complete omniscience. Open Theism, which Dake’s teaching resembles, has been repeatedly rejected by orthodox Christianity as incompatible with biblical teaching about God’s nature.

The Influence of Dake’s Teachings

Despite these serious errors, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible remains popular in some Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Many users of his Bible may be unaware of the theological problems in his systematic theology. This highlights the importance of theological discernment and the danger of accepting any teacher’s words without biblical scrutiny.

It’s worth noting that one can appreciate certain aspects of Dake’s work – his emphasis on biblical study, his detailed cross-references, his passion for Scripture – while firmly rejecting his theological errors. However, given the fundamental nature of these errors, particularly his tri-theistic teaching, readers should exercise extreme caution when using his materials.

The Importance of Orthodox Theology

Some might ask, “Does it really matter if we get these theological details right? Isn’t it enough to love Jesus and believe the Bible?” While sincere faith in Christ is indeed what saves us, not perfect theology, these issues matter profoundly for several reasons:

1. Worship: We cannot properly worship a God we don’t properly know. If we think God is three separate beings with physical bodies limited to specific locations, our worship will be misdirected.

2. Prayer: Our prayer life is shaped by our understanding of God. If we believe God doesn’t know everything or isn’t everywhere present, it affects how and why we pray.

3. Trust: Our ability to trust God in difficult times depends on our confidence in His attributes. If God is learning and discovering things as Dake teaches, how can we trust that He’s in control?

4. Witness: When we share the gospel, we’re introducing people to God. If we misrepresent who God is, we’re not sharing the true gospel.

5. Unity: The church’s unity is built on shared fundamental truths. When teachers like Dake redefine these truths, they create division and confusion.

Part VIII: Responding to Common Defenses of Dake

“Dake Was Just Taking the Bible Literally”

Some defend Dake by saying he was simply taking Scripture at face value rather than spiritualizing it. However, proper biblical interpretation requires understanding literary genres and devices. When the Bible says God “repented” (Genesis 6:6 KJV), it’s using anthropopathism – attributing human emotions to God to help us understand His response to sin. When it speaks of God’s “hand,” it’s using anthropomorphism to describe God’s power.

Taking these passages literally, as Dake does, actually misses their true meaning. The Bible itself tells us “God is spirit” (John 4:24), which should guide our interpretation of physical descriptions of God.

“Dake’s Bible Notes Are Still Helpful”

While Dake’s Bible contains some helpful study aids, his theological errors permeate his notes. Users must constantly filter his comments through biblical truth, which can be dangerous for new believers or those without strong theological grounding. There are many excellent study Bibles available that don’t require such constant vigilance against error.

“These Are Secondary Issues”

The nature of God, the Trinity, and the person of Christ are not secondary issues – they are foundational to Christian faith. The apostle John wrote his first epistle partly to combat false teachings about Christ’s nature (1 John 4:1-3). Paul warned strongly against those who preach “another Jesus” or “a different gospel” (2 Corinthians 11:4). These are primary, essential truths.

“Dake Was a Man of His Time”

While we should consider historical context, Dake’s errors weren’t typical of his era. He was writing in the mid-20th century when orthodox Christian theology was well-established and widely available. His departures from orthodoxy were choices, not inevitable products of his time.

Part IX: Detailed Analysis of Specific Passages

Understanding Anthropomorphic Language

To better understand why Dake’s literal interpretation of anthropomorphic passages is problematic, let’s examine specific texts he uses to support his view that God has a physical body:

Genesis 3:8 – “They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden”

Dake uses this to prove God has legs and walks. However, the Hebrew word here can mean “sound” or “voice,” and the passage is describing a theophany – a temporary manifestation of God’s presence. This doesn’t mean God always has a physical body any more than God appearing as a burning bush means He is always a bush.

Exodus 33:20-23 – God’s “back parts”

Dake argues this proves God has a front and back. However, this is clearly accommodative language. God is allowing Moses to experience His presence in a way Moses can comprehend. The very same passage says no one can see God’s face and live, indicating this isn’t about literal physical features but about degrees of divine revelation.

Daniel 7:9 – The “Ancient of Days” with white hair

Dake sees this as proof of God’s physical appearance. However, this is apocalyptic literature full of symbolic imagery. The white hair represents wisdom and eternality, not literal hair follicles. If we take this literally, we must also believe God needs a throne with wheels (v. 9).

The Biblical Teaching on God’s Spiritual Nature

Scripture consistently teaches that God is spirit and distinct from physical creation:

Isaiah 31:3 – “The Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit.” This verse explicitly contrasts physical flesh with spirit, identifying God with spirit, not flesh.

John 4:24 – “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Jesus could not be clearer – God’s essential nature is spirit, not physical.

Acts 17:24-25 – “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything.” God is not confined to physical locations or dependent on physical service.

1 Timothy 1:17 – “To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.” God is explicitly called invisible – incompatible with having a permanent physical body.

Understanding Divine Accommodation

The concept of divine accommodation helps us understand how the infinite God reveals Himself to finite humans. God “accommodates” or adjusts His revelation to our limited capacity to understand. He uses human language, concepts, and imagery not because He is limited to these forms, but because we are.

When Scripture speaks of God’s “eyes” seeing or His “hand” acting, it’s using language we understand to communicate truths about God’s knowledge and power. To take these literally, as Dake does, is to miss the greater truth being communicated.

Part X: The Practical Consequences of Dake’s Theology

Impact on Personal Devotion

Dake’s theology has serious practical implications for Christian life and devotion:

Prayer: If God has a physical body in heaven and is not truly omnipresent, how can He hear the prayers of millions simultaneously? Dake’s teaching logically leads to doubt about whether God can really hear and respond to our prayers.

Comfort in Trials: The biblical promise that God is always with us (Hebrews 13:5) loses its meaning if God is physically located only in heaven. The comfort of God’s presence becomes merely metaphorical rather than actual.

Worship: How do we worship three separate Gods while maintaining biblical monotheism? Dake’s tri-theism creates an impossible worship dilemma – do we worship all three equally, or favor one over the others?

Assurance: If God doesn’t know the future exhaustively, as Dake teaches, how can we have assurance of salvation? How can God guarantee what He doesn’t know?

Impact on Evangelism and Missions

Dake’s theology also affects our witness to the world:

To Muslims: Muslims already accuse Christians of polytheism because of misunderstanding the Trinity. Dake’s tri-theism would confirm their accusations, making evangelism to Muslims nearly impossible.

To Jews: The Jewish Shema declares God is one. Dake’s three separate Gods contradicts this fundamental monotheism, creating a massive barrier to Jewish evangelism.

To Atheists: Dake’s limited, physical god is easier for atheists to dismiss as simply an advanced alien being rather than the transcendent Creator of all things.

Impact on Church Unity

The church’s unity is built on shared fundamental truths about God. When teachers like Dake radically redefine these truths, they create division. Churches using Dake’s materials may find themselves teaching a fundamentally different faith than historic Christianity, leading to confusion and division within the body of Christ.

Part XI: A Biblical Response to Each Major Error

Let’s systematically address each of Dake’s major errors with clear biblical teaching:

Dake’s Error	Biblical Truth	Key Scriptures
Three separate Gods The Godhead consists of three completely separate beings	One God in three persons One divine essence, three distinct persons	Deuteronomy 6:4 Matthew 28:19 2 Corinthians 13:14
God has a physical body Each person of the Godhead has a separate physical body	God is spirit God is not confined to physicality	John 4:24 1 Timothy 6:16 Colossians 1:15
Limited omnipresence God’s body is in heaven; only His influence is everywhere	True omnipresence God is actually present everywhere	Psalm 139:7-10 Jeremiah 23:23-24 Acts 17:27-28
Limited omniscience God learns and needs information from angels	Perfect omniscience God knows all things eternally	Psalm 147:5 Isaiah 46:9-10 1 John 3:20
Christ emptied of deity Jesus had no divine attributes during His earthly life	Christ retained deity Jesus was fully God and fully man	Colossians 2:9 John 1:14 Philippians 2:6-7
No eternal Sonship Christ only became the Son at incarnation	Eternal Son of God Christ was the Son before incarnation	John 3:16 Galatians 4:4 Hebrews 1:2
Holy Spirit has a body The Spirit has a physical form	The Spirit is spirit The Holy Spirit is not physical	John 4:24 1 Corinthians 6:19 Romans 8:9-11

Part XII: Theological Method and Hermeneutical Problems

Dake’s Flawed Hermeneutics

Understanding how Dake arrived at his errors helps us avoid similar mistakes. His theological method reveals several fundamental hermeneutical (interpretive) problems:

1. Hyperliteralism: Dake takes figurative language literally without considering literary genre, context, or the analogy of faith (letting Scripture interpret Scripture). This leads him to see God as having literal body parts whenever such language appears.

2. Selective Literalism: Ironically, while being hyperliteral about anthropomorphisms, Dake is not literal about clear statements like “God is spirit” (John 4:24). He explains these away to fit his system.

3. Philosophical Presuppositions: Dake starts with the philosophical assumption that personhood requires physicality (“No person can exist without a body or a shape”). He then forces Scripture to fit this assumption rather than letting Scripture define personhood.

4. Ignoring Historical Theology: Dake dismisses centuries of Christian theological reflection as “ridiculous” without seriously engaging the arguments. This isolation from the broader Christian tradition leaves him vulnerable to error.

5. Redefinition of Terms: Rather than abandoning his errors when they conflict with orthodox terminology, Dake simply redefines the terms. This allows him to claim orthodoxy while teaching heterodoxy.

Proper Biblical Hermeneutics

In contrast to Dake’s flawed method, proper biblical interpretation involves:

1. Literary Sensitivity: Recognizing different genres (narrative, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic) and literary devices (metaphor, anthropomorphism, hyperbole).

2. Contextual Reading: Understanding passages in their immediate context, book context, and whole-Bible context.

3. The Analogy of Faith: Letting clearer passages interpret less clear ones, and understanding difficult passages in light of the whole testimony of Scripture.

4. Historical Awareness: Learning from how the church has understood these passages throughout history, while still testing everything by Scripture.

5. Theological Coherence: Ensuring our interpretation of individual passages fits with the overall teaching of Scripture about God’s nature and character.

Part XIII: The Attributes of God – Orthodox Teaching vs. Dake’s Distortions

Let’s examine in detail how Dake’s teaching distorts each of the classical attributes of God:

Divine Simplicity

Orthodox Teaching: God is not composed of parts. He is not a combination of attributes but is wholly and entirely each of His attributes. God doesn’t have love; He is love. He doesn’t have holiness; He is holy.

Dake’s Distortion: By giving God a physical body with parts, Dake makes God a composite being. This destroys divine simplicity and makes God dependent on His parts for His existence.

Divine Immutability

Orthodox Teaching: God does not change in His being, perfections, purposes, or promises (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

Dake’s Distortion: A God who learns and discovers things necessarily changes. Dake’s god grows in knowledge, which means he changes over time.

Divine Infinity

Orthodox Teaching: God is unlimited and unbounded. He is not confined by space, time, or any other limitation.

Dake’s Distortion: A God with a physical body is necessarily finite and limited. Dake’s god is bounded by his physical form and location.

Divine Transcendence

Orthodox Teaching: God is wholly other, existing above and beyond creation while also being immanent within it.

Dake’s Distortion: Dake’s god is part of the physical universe, living on a planet somewhere. This destroys transcendence and makes God merely the most powerful being within creation rather than the Creator who exists beyond it.

Divine Aseity

Orthodox Teaching: God is self-existent and self-sufficient, depending on nothing outside Himself for His existence or happiness.

Dake’s Distortion: A God who needs information from angels is not self-sufficient. Dake’s god depends on his creation for knowledge.

Part XIV: Specific Passages Misinterpreted by Dake

Let’s examine how Dake misinterprets specific biblical passages to support his errors:

Genesis 1:26 – “Let us make man in our image”

Dake’s Interpretation: This proves God has a physical body since man has a physical body.

Correct Interpretation: The image of God refers primarily to man’s spiritual qualities – rationality, morality, spirituality, and dominion. While humans have bodies, the image of God is not primarily physical. This is proven by the fact that we still bear God’s image after the fall (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9), and that Christ, who is the perfect image of God (Colossians 1:15), images God through His divine nature, not His human body.

Genesis 6:6 – “The LORD regretted that he had made man”

Dake’s Interpretation: This proves God didn’t know man would sin and learned something new.

Correct Interpretation: This is anthropopathic language, describing God’s response to sin in human terms we can understand. God’s “regret” is His settled opposition to sin, not surprise at unexpected events. God’s foreknowledge is clearly taught elsewhere (Isaiah 46:10; Acts 15:18).

Genesis 18:21 – “I will go down and see”

Dake’s Interpretation: God needed to investigate Sodom because He didn’t know how wicked it was.

Correct Interpretation: This is God accommodating His judicial process to human understanding, demonstrating His justice. God investigates not to gain information but to demonstrate the justice of His judgment. Abraham’s intercession in the same chapter assumes God already knows everything.

1 John 5:7 – “These three are one”

Dake’s Interpretation: Three separate beings are one only in purpose and unity.

Correct Interpretation: While this verse has textual issues, the doctrine it expresses is taught throughout Scripture. The oneness is not mere agreement but essential unity. Jesus claimed “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), using language that the Jews understood as a claim to deity, not mere agreement.

Part XV: The Historical Development of Trinitarian Doctrine

Understanding how the church arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity helps us appreciate why Dake’s tri-theism is such a serious error:

The Biblical Data

The early church had to reconcile several biblical truths:

• There is only one God (monotheism)
• The Father is God
• The Son is God
• The Holy Spirit is God
• The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons

The doctrine of the Trinity is the only formulation that holds all these truths together without contradiction.

Early Heresies

The church rejected several inadequate attempts to explain these truths:

Modalism: The belief that God is one person who appears in three different modes or roles. This was rejected because Scripture shows the Father, Son, and Spirit interacting as distinct persons.

Arianism: The belief that the Son was created by the Father. This was rejected because Scripture teaches the Son’s eternal deity.

Tri-theism: The belief in three separate Gods. This was rejected because Scripture insists on monotheism.

Dake’s teaching is essentially a form of tri-theism, the very error the early church fought against.

The Orthodox Formulation

The Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) articulated what Scripture teaches: one God existing eternally as three distinct persons who share one divine essence. This isn’t a human invention but the careful expression of biblical truth.

Part XVI: Pastoral Concerns and Practical Application

Why This Matters for Every Christian

Some might wonder why these theological distinctions matter for everyday Christian life. The truth is, they matter immensely:

For New Believers: Those new to faith need solid foundation in biblical truth. Dake’s errors can confuse and mislead those trying to understand God.

For Growing Christians: Spiritual growth requires accurate knowledge of God. Wrong theology leads to wrong practice.

For Church Leaders: Teachers bear greater responsibility (James 3:1). Using Dake’s materials without discernment can lead entire congregations into error.

For Witnesses: We represent Christ to the world. If we misrepresent God’s nature, we give a false witness.

How to Respond to Dake’s Influence

If you or your church has been influenced by Dake’s teaching:

Resources for Further Study

For those wanting to understand orthodox Christian theology better:

• On the Trinity: Study the Athanasian Creed, Augustine’s “On the Trinity,” and modern works like Michael Reeves’ “Delighting in the Trinity”
• On God’s Attributes: A.W. Tozer’s “The Knowledge of the Holy,” J.I. Packer’s “Knowing God”
• On Christology: The Chalcedonian Definition, John Murray’s “Redemption Accomplished and Applied”
• On Biblical Interpretation: “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth” by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart

Conclusion: Standing Firm on Biblical Truth

Finis Dake’s “God’s Plan for Man” represents a significant departure from biblical Christianity. His teachings about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit contradict both Scripture and historic Christian orthodoxy. While Dake may have been sincere in his beliefs, sincerity doesn’t make error into truth.

The god of Dake’s theology is not the God revealed in Scripture. Dake presents us with three limited, physical beings who need information from angels, who learn and change, and who are confined to physical locations. This is not the infinite, eternal, unchangeable, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God whom Christians have worshiped for two millennia.

The Christ of Dake’s theology is not the Christ of Scripture. Dake’s Jesus is stripped of His divine attributes, ceasing to be God during His earthly life. This undermines the incarnation and raises serious questions about the efficacy of Christ’s atonement.

The Spirit of Dake’s theology is not the Spirit of Scripture. A Spirit with a physical body cannot indwell millions of believers simultaneously and cannot be the omnipresent helper Jesus promised.

The church has always had to contend with false teaching, and each generation must stand firm on biblical truth. As Paul warned Timothy, “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Timothy 4:16).

May we be found faithful to the truth once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), proclaiming not the god of human imagination but the true and living God revealed in Scripture and supremely in Jesus Christ our Lord. May we worship the one God who exists eternally as three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

Appendix: Quick Reference Guide to Dake’s Errors

For easy reference, here is a summary of the major theological errors found in Dake’s “God’s Plan for Man”:

“Guard the good deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge,’ for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.”
– 1 Timothy 6:20-21