This article provides a thorough biblical and theological analysis of Finis Dake’s teachings on the Trinity, demonstrating how his doctrine fundamentally departs from orthodox Christianity and constitutes tri-theism – the belief in three separate Gods rather than one God in three persons.
Introduction: The Forum Post’s Misleading Defense
A recent post on the Dake Bible Board forum attempts to defend Finis Jennings Dake against the charge of tri-theism, claiming that “nothing could be farther from the truth.” The author quotes respected theologians like Henry Thiessen and Millard Erickson, attempting to show that Dake’s teachings align with orthodox Christianity. However, this defense is deeply misleading and fails to accurately represent what Dake actually taught in his writings.
The forum post’s fundamental error lies in selectively quoting Dake’s use of traditional theological terminology while ignoring how he radically redefines these terms to mean something entirely different from orthodox Christianity. When Dake speaks of “one God” or “unity of essence,” he does not mean what orthodox theologians mean. This article will demonstrate, using extensive quotations from Dake’s own works—particularly his book God’s Plan for Man (GPFM) and his Dake Annotated Reference Bible—that his doctrine is indeed tri-theistic.
Part I: What is Tri-theism?
Before examining Dake’s teachings, we must clearly understand what tri-theism is and how it differs from the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
Orthodox Trinity:
- One God in essence/being/substance
- Three distinct persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
- The persons are distinguished by their relations, not by separate essences
- Each person fully possesses the one divine essence
- God is spirit and does not have a physical body
Tri-theism:
- Three separate divine beings
- Unity only in purpose and cooperation, not in essence
- Each person has their own separate essence/substance
- The three are one only in the sense that any group can be “one”
- Often includes the belief that each person has a separate body
As theologian Henry Thiessen (whom the forum post quotes) correctly states: “Tri-theism denies the unity of the essence of God and holds to three distinct Gods. The only unity that it recognizes is the unity of purpose and endeavor.” This is precisely what we will demonstrate Dake teaches.
Part II: Dake’s Teaching That God Has a Physical Body
One of the most distinctive and problematic aspects of Dake’s theology is his insistence that God the Father has a literal, physical body with material substance. This teaching alone places him outside orthodox Christianity and is a hallmark of tri-theistic thinking.
A. Dake’s Explicit Statements About God’s Body
In God’s Plan for Man, Dake makes the following shocking claims:
GPFM, page 51: “INCARNATION means a person assuming a body which he takes as his very own, dwelling inside that body and not existing in any sense outside the body which he has taken to dwell in.”
Dake continues with even more explicit statements:
GPFM, page 51: “FATHER AND SON. A father is one who has begotten or brought into existence a child. A son is the one who is begotten by a father. It requires two separate beings to be a father and a son. They could in no sense be one person, but could be one in unity, as any two persons can be.”
Notice how Dake explicitly states that the Father and Son “require two separate beings” and “could in no sense be one person.” This is a direct denial of the orthodox teaching that the three persons share one divine essence.
B. Dake’s Description of God’s Physical Features
Dake goes much further, describing God as having literal body parts:
GPFM, page 56: “God is a person who is Spirit, infinite, eternal, immutable, self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, invisible, perfect, impartial, immortal, absolutely holy and just, full of knowledge and wisdom, in whom all things have their source, support and end. God is known in Scripture by over two hundred names. He is described as having a body, soul, and spirit (Job 13:8; Heb. 1:3; Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-7). He is a Spirit Being with a body (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-6, 9-19; Exodus 24:11; Gen. 18; 32:24-32; Ezek. 1:26-28; Acts 7:54-59; Rev. 4:2-4; 5:1, 5-7; 22:4-5); shape (John 5:37); form (Phil. 2:5-7, same Greek word as in Mark 16:12, which refers to bodily form); and an image and likeness of a man (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Ezek. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9; Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-6). He has back parts; hands and fingers (Exodus 31:18; Ps. 8:3-6; Rev. 5:1, 6-7); nostrils (Ps. 18:8, 15); mouth (Num. 12:8); lips and tongue (Isa. 30:27); feet (Ezek. 1:27; Exodus 24:10); eyes, eyelids, sight (Ps. 11:4; 18:24; 33:18); voice (Ps. 29; Rev. 10:3-4; Gen. 1); breath (Gen. 2:7); ears (Ps. 18:6); countenance (Ps. 11:7); hair, head, face, arms (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19; Rev. 5:1, 6-7; 22:4-6); loins (Ezek. 1:26-28; 8:1-4); bodily presence (Gen. 3:8; 18:1-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Ex. 24:10-11); and many other bodily parts as is required of Him to be a person with a body.”
This extensive list reveals Dake’s belief that God literally has a physical body with material substance, complete with hair, loins, nostrils, and other bodily parts. This is completely contrary to orthodox Christian teaching, which affirms that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and does not have a physical body.
C. Dake’s Denial of God’s Omnipresence
Because Dake believes God has a physical body, he must logically deny God’s omnipresence (the doctrine that God is everywhere present). He writes:
GPFM, page 57: “He has revealed Himself in so many different ways, proving to men that He has a body with bodily parts like man, that only rebels and unbelievers will reject such obviously literal manifestations and revelations of Deity. If we reject this revelation then we must also reject everything that is revealed of Him.”
Dake argues that if God doesn’t have a body, we cannot understand anything about Him. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of biblical anthropomorphisms (descriptions of God in human terms for our understanding) and forces God into a physical, limited form.
Part III: Dake’s Teaching of Three Separate Gods
The heart of Dake’s tri-theism becomes clear when he explains what he means by the “Trinity.” While he uses the word “Trinity,” he completely redefines it to mean three separate Gods who merely cooperate together.
A. Dake’s Redefinition of “One”
The forum post quotes Dake’s definition of the Trinity, but fails to explain how Dake radically redefines the meaning of “one.” Dake writes:
GPFM, page 65: “If there are THREE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PERSONS as plainly stated in 1 John 5:7-8, then let this fact be settled once and forever. All Scripture will harmonize with this idea, but not many scores of Scriptures cannot possibly be harmonized with the idea of God being only ONE PERSON or ONE PERSON MADE UP OF THREE PERSONS. The above passage is speaking of three witnesses and no one person can be three separate witnesses. It will be proved in Lessons Twenty-one and Twenty-five that both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit have personal bodies and that they are distinct persons from the Father, and in Lesson Twenty-seven it will be proved that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead. Since this is true, we must conclude here that if one person of the Godhead has a personal body, soul, and spirit, all three persons must also have separate bodies, souls, and spirits.”
Notice several critical points in this quote:
- Dake insists on “THREE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PERSONS” (emphasis his)
- He claims each person must have “separate bodies, souls, and spirits”
- He rejects the idea of “ONE PERSON MADE UP OF THREE PERSONS” (which is actually a straw man—orthodox theology doesn’t teach this)
- He argues that the three persons are separate in the same way three human witnesses would be separate
B. Unity Only in Purpose, Not Essence
When Dake speaks of the three being “one,” he means only that they work together toward the same goal, not that they share the same divine essence:
From Dake’s definition: “This means the union of three persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one (unified) Godhead or divinity – so that all three persons are one in unity and eternal substance, but three separate and distinct persons as to individuality.”
While this might sound orthodox at first glance, Dake clarifies what he means by “one in unity” throughout his writings. He consistently uses analogies that demonstrate he means unity only in purpose and cooperation:
GPFM, page 50: “IN. This word means in union with and when used of persons it does not mean bodily entrance into, except, in the case of disembodied spirits, or demons. We read of God being in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19) and Christ being in God (John 14: 10-11, 20); of man being in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) and Christ being in man (Rom. 8:10); of man being in the Spirit and the Spirit being in man (Rom. 8:9); and of Satan entering into man (John 13:27); but it never means in these cases bodily entrance into, for all these persons have bodies and cannot reach inside of each other bodily. When Paul said of believers, ‘I have you in my heart’ and ‘ye are in our hearts’ (2 Cor. 7:3; Phil. 1:7), he could only mean in union with, not bodily entrance into.”
This reveals Dake’s fundamental error: because he believes God has a physical body, he cannot conceive of the three persons sharing one divine essence. Instead, he reduces their unity to mere cooperation, like three humans working together.
C. Dake’s Explicit Tri-theistic Statements
Perhaps the clearest evidence of Dake’s tri-theism comes from his discussions comparing human unity to divine unity:
The Truth about Baptism in the Holy Spirit: “It is the same idea as when a man and woman become ‘one flesh’ when ‘joined together’ (Gen. 2:24; Mt. 19:5); when thousands of people become ‘one people’ (Gen. 11:6); when many bodies become ‘one body’ (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12-28); when many minds become ‘one mind’ (Rom. 15:6; Phil. 2:2); when many spirits become ‘one spirit’ (1 Cor. 6:17; Phil. 1:27); and when many men become ‘one man’ (Eph. 2:14-15; 4:13).”
Here Dake explicitly compares the Trinity’s oneness to the way multiple humans can be called “one” while remaining completely separate beings. This is the very definition of tri-theism—three separate Gods who are only “one” in the sense of cooperation and purpose.
Part IV: Dake’s Doctrine of “Interpenetration”
One of Dake’s most revealing teachings is his doctrine of “interpenetration,” where he attempts to explain how the Father and Son can be “in” each other without sharing the same essence.
A. The Problem of Physical Bodies
Because Dake believes each person of the Trinity has a separate physical body, he faces a theological dilemma: How can Jesus say “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10) if they have separate bodies? His solution reveals his tri-theistic thinking:
The Truth about Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Section XIV: “The Bible does not teach that Satan, the Holy Spirit, Christ, or God ever comes into and dwells in any man in the sense of incarnation. This means that they always exist as separate persons outside of man and never enter bodily into him to dwell. They all have their own separate and personal bodies, souls, and spirits, and could not enter into anyone bodily.”
This is a stunning admission. Dake claims that because God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit each have “their own separate and personal bodies, souls, and spirits,” they cannot actually indwell believers in any real sense. This directly contradicts numerous Scripture passages about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
B. Redefining Biblical Terms
To maintain his position, Dake must redefine what it means for the persons of the Trinity to be “in” each other:
The Truth about Baptism in the Holy Spirit: “The word ‘inter-penetrate,’ or dwelling in each other, could not possibly mean getting on the inside of each other bodily. It means ‘to penetrate within or between;’ ‘to permeate;’ ‘to penetrate each other.’ It is a word used to describe the union of two persons so that they are considered as being in and dwelling in each other. Since the idea could not be that of bodies getting on the inside of each other, it must mean the union of spirits, natures, wills, ideals, purposes, plans, acts, thoughts, and desires.”
Notice how Dake reduces the divine unity to merely a unity of “wills, ideals, purposes, plans.” This is precisely what tri-theism teaches—separate Gods who share common goals.
C. Human Analogies Proving Tri-theism
Dake consistently uses human analogies to explain the Trinity, which reveals his tri-theistic thinking:
The Truth about Baptism in the Holy Spirit: “No person loses his own personal body, soul, and spirit in order to become ‘one’ with, or to be ‘in’ others. Being ‘in’ each other does not depend on bodily contact, neither is it made ineffective by distance. Two or more people can live in each other and the union may be complete regardless of bodily contact or distance from each other.”
This analogy makes it clear: just as humans remain separate beings when they’re united in purpose, so the three persons of Dake’s “trinity” remain three separate Gods.
Part V: Refuting the Forum Post’s Defense
Now let’s directly address the arguments made in the forum post defending Dake.
A. The Misuse of Orthodox Definitions
The forum author quotes Dake’s definition of the Trinity and claims it’s orthodox because it uses phrases like “one in unity and eternal substance.” However, this ignores how Dake completely redefines these terms. When orthodox theologians say “one substance,” they mean the three persons share the same divine essence. When Dake says “one substance,” he means three separate beings who cooperate together, as his own writings clearly demonstrate.
B. The Claim About “Unity of Essence”
The forum post states: “As we have seen, Dake recognizes a unity of essence which Tri-theism denies.” This is simply false. Dake explicitly denies unity of essence in the orthodox sense. He writes:
Bible Truths Unmasked: “It is clearly revealed in Scripture that God is ONE BEING CONSTITUTED BY THREE PERSONS. We give this complex Person the name TRINITY … It would be folly to seek to explain this startling revelation … We can only say that we believe it BECAUSE WE DO NOT COMPREHEND IT … The doctrine of the Trinity bewilders the most astute and is frankly BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF THE MOST LEARNED.”
Wait—this quote seems to support orthodoxy! But look at what Dake says immediately after:
Bible Truths Unmasked (continued): “God as a tricorporeal, invisible reality, has no body or parts like human beings… God cannot be seen with the material eyes; nothing on earth to resemble Him; without parts, without body, without passions… God cannot be comprehended by the senses, but by the soul; and is above sensuous representation… The image of God consists only in the spiritual and moral likeness.”
But then Dake completely contradicts this, saying:
Bible Truths Unmasked (continued): “Such statements are foolish and unscriptural, to say the least. It is no wonder that these men cannot comprehend the Trinity of God as they declare. They make such impossible propositions about God that it is impossible to comprehend them. If we will take the Bible instead of these statements we can comprehend God. The Bible does not say that God is one person constituted of three persons. This could never be, but God can be three distinct persons as separate and distinct as any three persons we know of in this life. This is comprehensible, but the other is not, for there can be no”
This demonstrates Dake’s method: he sometimes uses orthodox-sounding language but then immediately contradicts it with his actual tri-theistic teaching.
C. The “Jesus Only” Red Herring
The forum post claims Dake was simply combating the “Jesus Only” or “Oneness” movement, implying his emphasis on three persons was merely to counter modalism. While Dake did oppose Oneness theology, his response went far beyond orthodox Trinitarianism into tri-theism. One can oppose modalism without teaching that God has a physical body or that the three persons are three separate beings.
D. The Selective Quotation Problem
The forum post’s most serious flaw is its selective quotation. It quotes Dake saying “three persons in one God” but ignores his extensive explanations of what he means by this phrase. When read in context, Dake’s actual meaning becomes clear: three separate Gods who work together, not one God in three persons.
Part VI: The Implications of Dake’s Tri-theism
Dake’s tri-theistic doctrine has serious theological implications that place him outside orthodox Christianity.
A. Polytheism
By teaching three separate divine beings with separate bodies and essences, Dake advocates polytheism—the belief in multiple gods. This violates the fundamental biblical teaching of monotheism: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
B. A Limited God
By giving God a physical body, Dake limits God to being in one place at one time. This denies God’s omnipresence and reduces Him to a glorified human-like being. The God of Dake’s theology is not the infinite, omnipresent God of the Bible who “fills heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 23:24).
C. Misunderstanding the Incarnation
Dake’s doctrine makes the Incarnation meaningless. If God already has a body, what was special about Christ taking on human flesh? The orthodox teaching is that the eternal Son, who is spirit, took on human nature in the Incarnation. Dake’s teaching undermines this central Christian doctrine.
D. Denying the Indwelling Spirit
Perhaps most seriously, Dake’s teaching that the Holy Spirit cannot actually indwell believers (because He has a separate body) contradicts numerous New Testament passages about the Spirit dwelling in Christians (Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
Part VII: Dake’s Method of Interpretation
Understanding how Dake arrives at his conclusions helps explain his errors.
A. Hyper-Literalism
Dake applies a rigid literalism to biblical anthropomorphisms (descriptions of God in human terms). When the Bible speaks of God’s “hand” or “eyes,” Dake insists these must be literal body parts rather than figurative language used to help us understand God’s actions and attributes.
The Error: This interpretive method fails to recognize that the Bible often uses phenomenological language (describing things as they appear) and anthropomorphic language (describing God in human terms for our understanding) without implying that God literally has a physical body.
B. Proof-Texting
Dake strings together numerous Bible verses without considering their context or the type of literature they represent. He treats poetic passages from Psalms the same as doctrinal teaching from the epistles, and symbolic visions from Revelation as literal descriptions of God’s appearance.
C. Imposing Human Limitations on God
Throughout his writings, Dake assumes that what is true of humans must be true of God. Since humans need bodies to be persons, he argues God must have a body. Since human fathers and sons are separate beings, the Father and Son must be separate beings. This fundamentally misunderstands the Creator-creature distinction and the unique nature of God.
Part VIII: Historical and Theological Context
Dake’s teachings do not exist in a vacuum but reflect certain theological trends and influences.
A. Mormon Parallels
Dake’s teaching that God has a physical body bears striking resemblance to Mormon doctrine. The LDS church teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods who are one in purpose. While Dake was not a Mormon, his theology arrives at remarkably similar conclusions.
B. Departure from Historic Christianity
The doctrine of the Trinity was carefully formulated over centuries of theological reflection, guided by Scripture and refined through debate with various heresies. The Nicene Creed (325 AD) and the Athanasian Creed clearly affirm one God in three persons, not three Gods. Dake’s teaching represents a departure from nearly 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy.
C. The Influence on Modern Movements
Dake’s teachings have influenced certain segments of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, though many in these movements reject his tri-theism. His study Bible continues to be used by some who may not realize the heretical nature of his doctrine of God.
Part IX: Biblical Refutation of Dake’s Core Claims
Let’s examine key biblical passages that refute Dake’s tri-theistic teaching.
A. God is Spirit
John 4:24: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Analysis: Jesus explicitly states that God is spirit, not that God has a spirit in a body. The Greek construction (pneuma ho theos) emphasizes God’s essential nature as spirit, contradicting Dake’s claim that God has a physical body.
B. God’s Omnipresence
Jeremiah 23:24: “Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord.”
1 Kings 8:27: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you.”
Analysis: These passages teach that God fills heaven and earth and cannot be contained even by the highest heaven. This is impossible if God has a physical body limited to one location.
C. The Unity of God
Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
Isaiah 44:6: “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.'”
1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Analysis: Scripture consistently affirms that there is only one God, not three Gods working together. The Hebrew word “echad” (one) in Deuteronomy 6:4 means numerical oneness, not merely unity of purpose.
Colossians 2:9: “For in him [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Analysis: These passages teach that Christ possesses the fullness of deity, not a separate divine essence. John 1:1 carefully maintains both distinction (with God) and essential unity (was God).
E. The Indwelling of the Spirit
1 Corinthians 3:16: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?”
Romans 8:9-11: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.”
Analysis: The New Testament clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit actually dwells within believers, not merely cooperates with them from outside. Dake’s doctrine that the Spirit cannot indwell believers because He has a separate body contradicts these clear teachings.
Part X: The Danger of Redefining Biblical Terms
One of the most deceptive aspects of Dake’s teaching is his use of orthodox terminology with unorthodox meanings.
A. “Trinity”
Dake uses the word “Trinity” but means three separate Gods, not one God in three persons.
B. “One God”
When Dake says “one God,” he means three Gods united in purpose, like saying “one team” about three players.
C. “Unity of Essence”
Dake speaks of “unity of essence” but means cooperation between three separate essences, not sharing one divine essence.
D. “Persons”
While orthodoxy uses “persons” to describe distinctions within the one God, Dake uses it to mean three separate beings.
Warning: This redefinition of terms allows Dake’s followers to sound orthodox while believing heresy. It’s crucial to ask what someone means by theological terms, not just whether they use them.
Part XI: Responding to Potential Objections
A. “But Dake Was a Godly Man”
Personal godliness does not guarantee theological accuracy. Many sincere Christians have held erroneous views. We must test all teaching against Scripture (Acts 17:11, 1 John 4:1).
B. “Dake’s Other Teachings Are Sound”
Even if some of Dake’s teachings are biblical, his doctrine of God is so fundamental that error here affects everything else. The nature of God is not a secondary issue but the very foundation of Christian faith.
C. “This Is Just Theological Nitpicking”
The difference between one God and three Gods is not a minor distinction. It’s the difference between monotheism and polytheism, between Christianity and paganism. The early church considered this issue important enough to convene councils and write creeds to preserve the truth.
D. “Dake Was Fighting Liberalism”
While Dake opposed theological liberalism, his response created equally serious errors. We cannot combat one heresy by embracing another. The solution to denying the Trinity is not tri-theism but biblical orthodoxy.
Part XII: The Practical Consequences
Dake’s tri-theistic doctrine has serious practical implications for Christian faith and life.
A. Prayer and Worship
If there are three Gods, which one do we worship? How do we avoid polytheistic practice? The Bible’s call to worship one God becomes confused if there are actually three.
B. The Gospel Message
The gospel proclaims that God became man in Christ to save us. If God already has a body, and if the three persons are separate beings, the Incarnation loses its unique significance.
C. Christian Unity
The church’s unity is grounded in the unity of God (Ephesians 4:4-6). If God is not truly one, the basis for Christian unity is undermined.
D. Assurance of Salvation
If the Holy Spirit cannot truly indwell believers (as Dake teaches), how can we have assurance of salvation? Romans 8:16 says the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children.
Conclusion: The Truth About Dake’s Tri-theism
After extensive examination of Finis Dake’s own writings, the evidence is overwhelming: Dake taught tri-theism, not the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Despite using orthodox terminology, he fundamentally redefined these terms to teach:
- God the Father has a physical body with literal body parts
- The three persons of the “Trinity” are three separate beings with separate bodies, souls, and spirits
- Their unity is only in purpose and cooperation, like three humans working together
- The Holy Spirit cannot actually indwell believers because He has His own separate body
- God is not omnipresent but limited to one location due to having a body
The forum post’s defense of Dake fails because it relies on selective quotation and ignores Dake’s clear explanations of what he means by traditional theological terms. When Dake’s teachings are examined in full context, his departure from orthodox Christianity becomes undeniable.
A Call to Biblical Fidelity
Christians must be vigilant to preserve the biblical doctrine of the Trinity against all distortions, whether from modalism (which denies the distinction of persons) or tri-theism (which denies the unity of essence). The God of the Bible is neither one person wearing three masks nor three separate Gods working together, but one God eternally existing in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who share one divine essence.
We must test all teaching against Scripture, regardless of the teacher’s reputation or the popularity of their materials. The Dake Study Bible, despite containing some helpful notes, promotes a fundamentally flawed and heretical view of God that places its author outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
May we hold fast to the biblical revelation: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4), while also affirming with the apostles the full deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.
Appendix: Key Quotes from Dake’s Works
For those who wish to verify these claims, here are additional direct quotes from Dake’s works with source citations:
On God Having a Body:
“God is a person who is Spirit… He is described as having a body, soul, and spirit… He is a Spirit Being with a body” (GPFM, p. 56)
On Three Separate Beings:
“It requires two separate beings to be a father and a son. They could in no sense be one person, but could be one in unity, as any two persons can be.” (GPFM, p. 51)
On Physical Limitations:
“They all have their own separate and personal bodies, souls, and spirits, and could not enter into anyone bodily.” (The Truth about Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Section XIV)
On the Meaning of “One”:
“The one Elohim then is not one person, or one in number, but one in unity.” (God’s Plan for Man, Lesson on Elohim)
On Interpenetration:
“Since the idea could not be that of bodies getting on the inside of each other, it must mean the union of spirits, natures, wills, ideals, purposes, plans, acts, thoughts, and desires.” (The Truth about Baptism in the Holy Spirit)
✝ Soli Deo Gloria ✝
To God Alone Be the Glory
© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.
