Finis Dake’s View of God: Striking Parallels with Mormon Theology

Introduction: The Importance of Sound Doctrine

The apostle Paul warned Timothy to “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Timothy 4:16). Throughout church history, the nature of God has been a fundamental doctrine that distinguishes biblical Christianity from various heresies and false religions. Unfortunately, many Christians today unknowingly embrace teachings that contradict orthodox Christian doctrine, particularly through the influence of popular study Bibles and teaching materials.

Finis Jennings Dake, through his extensively annotated Dake Study Bible and his systematic theology book “God’s Plan for Man,” has influenced millions of Christians worldwide. While Dake presented himself as a defender of biblical truth and fundamentalist Christianity, a careful examination of his writings reveals teachings about God’s nature that are strikingly similar to those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) – a group universally recognized by orthodox Christianity as teaching a different gospel and a different God.

This article will demonstrate through extensive documentation from Dake’s own writings that he taught doctrines fundamentally opposed to historic Christian orthodoxy, including: that God has a physical body with parts like humans; that God is limited in space and cannot be omnipresent; that the members of the Trinity are separate beings rather than one God in three persons; and that there are multiple gods ruling different realms. These teachings align remarkably with Mormon doctrine while contradicting the biblical and historic Christian understanding of God.

Part I: Dake’s Teaching That God Has a Physical Body

The Orthodox Christian Position

Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed that God is spirit (John 4:24) and does not possess a physical body. The Westminster Confession of Faith states that God is “a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions.” This understanding is based on numerous Scripture passages that teach God’s spiritual nature and His transcendence over physical creation. When the Bible speaks of God’s “hand,” “eyes,” or other body parts, orthodox theology has always understood these as anthropomorphisms – figurative language used to help finite humans understand infinite God.

Dake’s Radical Departure: God Has a Body

In stark contrast to orthodox Christianity, Dake explicitly taught that God the Father possesses a literal, physical body. In his book “God’s Plan for Man” (Chapter “The Eternal Past,” page 51), Dake makes this shocking statement:

This teaching is absolutely revolutionary and heretical from an orthodox Christian perspective. Dake is explicitly stating that God the Father has a body – not metaphorically, but literally. He further elaborates on this teaching throughout his works, making it clear that he believes God is a corporeal being with actual bodily parts.

Dake’s Defense of God’s Corporeality

Anticipating objections to his radical teaching, Dake attempts to defend his position by arguing that spirit bodies are just as real and tangible as physical bodies. He consistently teaches that angels, demons, and God Himself all possess bodies that can be localized in space, can be touched, and have definite form and shape.

In his commentary on Revelation, Dake writes extensively about the materiality of heaven and spiritual beings. He argues that if saints without their bodies can be clothed and exist in spirit form and be confined to literal places, then God as Spirit could sit on a literal throne. This fundamentally misunderstands the distinction between created spirits (angels and human souls) and the uncreated, infinite Spirit that is God.

The Mormon Parallel

This teaching about God having a body is precisely what the Mormon church teaches. The Doctrine and Covenants, one of Mormonism’s standard works, states: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, taught: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (King Follett Discourse, 1844).

While Dake doesn’t go as far as teaching that God was once a man (as Mormons do), his insistence that God has a body places him squarely outside orthodox Christianity and in alignment with Mormon theology on this crucial point.

Part II: Dake’s Denial of God’s Omnipresence

The Biblical and Orthodox Teaching

Scripture clearly teaches that God is omnipresent – present everywhere at all times. Psalm 139:7-10 declares: “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.”

Jeremiah 23:23-24 states: “Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.”

Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed God’s omnipresence as an essential attribute of His divine nature. God is not limited by space or time; He transcends His creation while being immanent within it.

Dake’s Limitation of God to Space

In direct contradiction to Scripture and orthodox theology, Dake explicitly denies God’s omnipresence. In his annotated Bible notes, Dake consistently teaches that God is confined to a specific location – namely, heaven – and cannot be present everywhere at once.

In his interpretation of biblical passages about God’s throne, Dake insists that God literally sits on a physical throne in a specific location in heaven. He argues that when the Bible says God “came down” to earth (as in Genesis 11:5 or Genesis 18), it means God literally traveled from one location to another, just as a human would.

This teaching has profound implications. If God is not omnipresent, then He cannot hear all prayers simultaneously. He cannot know all things happening everywhere. He becomes a limited, finite being – powerful perhaps, but not the infinite God of Scripture.

How Dake Handles “Problem” Passages

When confronted with passages that clearly teach God’s omnipresence, Dake employs various interpretive strategies to maintain his position. He often argues that such passages refer to God’s influence or power being everywhere, not His actual presence. He distinguishes between God’s “person” (which he claims is localized) and God’s “spirit” or “influence” (which can be everywhere).

This creates a false dichotomy unknown to Scripture. The Bible never separates God’s person from His presence in this way. When David asks, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” (Psalm 139:7), he is not making a distinction between God’s influence and God Himself – he is affirming that God Himself is everywhere present.

The Mormon Connection

Once again, Dake’s theology aligns remarkably with Mormon teaching. Mormons explicitly deny God’s omnipresence in the orthodox sense. They teach that God the Father has a physical body that exists in a specific location.

Mormon Apostle James E. Talmage wrote: “It is plain that to deny the materiality of God’s person is to deny God; for a thing without parts has no whole, and an immaterial body cannot exist” (Articles of Faith, p. 48).

Joseph Smith taught: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s… There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes” (D&C 130:22; 131:7-8).

By confining God to a body and limiting Him to space, both Dake and the Mormons reduce God from the infinite, omnipresent Being revealed in Scripture to a finite, albeit powerful, being who exists within the constraints of His creation.

Part III: Dake’s Teaching on the Trinity – Three Separate Beings

The Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is perhaps the most distinctive and important doctrine of the Christian faith. Orthodox Christianity affirms that there is one God who exists eternally in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct but not separate; they share one divine essence or nature. The Athanasian Creed expresses it thus: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.”

This is not tri-theism (three gods) but monotheism – one God in three persons. The three persons of the Trinity are co-eternal, co-equal, and consubstantial (of the same substance). They are distinct in their personal relations but one in essence, nature, and being.

Dake’s Tri-theistic Teaching

Dake’s teaching on the Trinity represents a radical departure from orthodox Christianity and a movement toward tri-theism. Throughout his writings, Dake consistently refers to the members of the Trinity as “three separate and distinct persons” with “separate bodies, souls, and spirits.”

In his book “God’s Plan for Man,” Dake writes about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate beings who work together but are not one in essence. He emphasizes their separateness rather than their unity, consistently using language that suggests three cooperative deities rather than one God in three persons.

When discussing passages like John 14:10-11 where Jesus says “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,” Dake explains this as mere cooperation and unity of purpose, not unity of essence. He writes extensively about what he calls “interpenetration,” arguing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit dwell in each other only in the sense of “union with, consecration to the same end, and becoming one in life, working together to accomplish a mutual purpose and plan.”

This explanation completely undermines the biblical and orthodox understanding of the Trinity. If the three persons are merely united in purpose but not in essence, then we have three gods working together, not one God in three persons.

Dake’s Rejection of Divine Simplicity

Related to his tri-theistic tendencies is Dake’s rejection of the doctrine of divine simplicity – the teaching that God is not composed of parts but is simple in His essence. By insisting that each person of the Trinity has a separate body, soul, and spirit, Dake makes God a composite being made up of parts. This is completely contrary to the orthodox understanding of God as simple, indivisible, and without parts.

The implications are staggering. If God is composed of parts, then He is not necessary being but contingent. If He has separate body, soul, and spirit, then He could theoretically be divided or destroyed. This makes God less than ultimate and dependent on something greater than Himself to hold His parts together.

The Mormon Parallel

Dake’s teaching on the Trinity as three separate beings aligns perfectly with Mormon theology. Mormons explicitly reject the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct beings or gods.

The Mormon Articles of Faith state: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Article 1). While this sounds orthodox, Mormons understand this to mean three separate beings, not one God in three persons.

Joseph Smith taught: “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “Three separate personages — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 319).

The similarity between Dake’s teaching and Mormon doctrine on this point is unmistakable. Both reject the orthodox doctrine of one God in three persons and instead teach three separate beings who are united in purpose but not in essence.

Part IV: Dake’s Limitation of God’s Omnipotence

The Biblical Teaching on God’s Omnipotence

Scripture consistently teaches that God is omnipotent – all-powerful, able to do all things consistent with His nature. Jesus declared, “With God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). The angel Gabriel announced to Mary, “For with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37). Job confessed, “I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee” (Job 42:2).

Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed that God’s omnipotence means He has unlimited power to accomplish His will. The only “limitations” on God’s power are logical contradictions (God cannot make a square circle) and things contrary to His nature (God cannot lie or sin). These are not true limitations but affirmations of God’s perfection and consistency.

Dake’s Teaching on Divine Limitations

In a shocking departure from biblical orthodoxy, Dake explicitly teaches that God is limited in His power and cannot do certain things. In his writings, particularly in his notes on God’s omnipotence, Dake lists numerous things that he claims God cannot do.

Dake goes on to argue that God cannot force people to be saved, cannot lie, cannot deny Himself, cannot save those who refuse His terms, cannot change His eternal plan, and many other supposed limitations. While some of these (like God cannot lie) are biblical affirmations of God’s holy character, Dake’s overall framework presents God as genuinely limited in power, not just self-limited by His character.

Most significantly, Dake teaches that God “limits Himself, according to His own revelation of Himself, along other lines, whether by nature or by choice is not always stated.” This suggests that God’s limitations are not just voluntary self-restrictions but may be inherent limitations in His nature – a thoroughly unbiblical concept.

The Problem of Multiple Omnipotent Beings

Dake’s theology creates an additional logical problem. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings (as Dake teaches), and each is omnipotent (as Dake also affirms), then we have three omnipotent beings. But it is logically impossible to have more than one omnipotent being. If there are three separate omnipotent wills, what happens when they conflict? Whose will prevails?

Orthodox theology avoids this problem by affirming that the three persons share one divine will because they share one divine nature. But Dake’s separation of the persons into distinct beings creates an insurmountable logical contradiction.

The Mormon Perspective

Once again, Dake’s teaching parallels Mormon doctrine. Mormons teach that God is limited and progressing. While they affirm that God is very powerful, they deny that He is omnipotent in the classical sense.

Mormon scholar Sterling McMurrin wrote: “God is not omnipotent in the traditional Christian sense. He did not create matter and energy out of nothing, and he is limited by the eternal laws of nature” (The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, p. 30).

The Mormon teaching that God was once a man who progressed to godhood necessarily implies that God is not omnipotent in the absolute sense but only relatively more powerful than humans. This aligns with Dake’s teaching that God operates within limitations and spheres of authority.

Part V: Dake’s Teaching on Christ’s Nature During the Incarnation

The Orthodox Understanding of the Incarnation

Orthodox Christianity teaches that in the incarnation, the eternal Son of God took on human nature while retaining His divine nature. Christ is one person with two natures – fully God and fully man. The Chalcedonian Creed affirms that Christ is “perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man… to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.”

While Christ voluntarily limited the use of His divine attributes during His earthly ministry (Philippians 2:5-8), He never ceased to be God or lost His divine nature. He remained omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in His divine nature, even while experiencing human limitations in His human nature.

Dake’s Kenotic Heresy

Dake teaches a extreme form of kenotic theology that virtually strips Christ of His deity during the incarnation. According to Dake, Christ completely “laid aside His God-form, including the natural and all-powerful attributes of God” when He became man.

Dake goes even further, teaching that “Jesus was born with no more power, wisdom, knowledge, or divine power than any other newborn baby.” This is a shocking denial of Christ’s deity. If Christ had no more divine power than any other baby, then He was not God incarnate but merely a human being.

Dake explicitly states: “The Bible teaches that, apart from the baptism of the Spirit, Christ was as helpless as any human being.” This reduces Christ to a mere man who needed the Holy Spirit’s empowerment to do anything supernatural. This fundamentally denies the incarnation and makes Christ less than God.

Dake’s Denial of Christ’s Omniscience

Related to his kenotic theology, Dake explicitly denies that Christ was omniscient during His earthly ministry. He points to Mark 13:32 (where Jesus says He doesn’t know the day or hour of His return) as proof that Christ was limited in knowledge.

In his commentary on Revelation, Dake writes: “Both prophets and apostles taught that Christ was limited as man and could not do one single miracle without the anointing of the Holy Spirit.” This presents Christ not as God incarnate but as a Spirit-anointed man, similar to the Old Testament prophets.

Orthodox theology has always understood passages like Mark 13:32 as referring to Christ’s human nature or to His role as the Suffering Servant, not as a denial of His divine omniscience. But Dake uses such passages to argue that Christ literally ceased to be omniscient when He became man.

The Mormon Parallel

Dake’s christology bears remarkable similarities to Mormon teaching about Christ. While Mormons affirm that Jesus is divine, they teach that He is a separate God from the Father and that He progressed to His divine status.

Mormons teach that Jesus is the literal spirit brother of all humans and even of Lucifer. He became a God through obedience to eternal laws and principles. This presents Christ as essentially similar to humans in nature, differing only in degree of progression and power.

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie taught: “Christ is the Firstborn, meaning that he was the first Spirit Child born to God the Father in the premortal life” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 281). This makes Christ a created being, not the eternal God.

While Dake doesn’t go as far as teaching that Christ is a created being, his denial of Christ’s divine attributes during the incarnation and his teaching that Christ needed the Holy Spirit’s empowerment to do anything supernatural moves in a similar direction – reducing Christ from being truly God to being a specially anointed man.

Part VI: Dake’s Teaching on Multiple Gods and Cosmic Hierarchy

Biblical Monotheism

The foundation of biblical faith is monotheism – the belief in one and only one God. The Shema, the central confession of Israel, declares: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Isaiah emphatically states: “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isaiah 45:5). “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44:8).

The New Testament continues this monotheistic emphasis. Paul writes: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him” (1 Corinthians 8:6). James declares: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well” (James 2:19).

Dake’s Polytheistic Tendencies

While Dake never explicitly endorses polytheism, his theological system opens the door to multiple gods in several ways. His teaching that the three persons of the Trinity are separate beings already moves toward tri-theism. But beyond this, Dake’s cosmology suggests a universe populated with god-like beings.

In his extensive writings on angels and spiritual beings, Dake attributes to them qualities and abilities that blur the line between creature and Creator. He teaches that angels have bodies, souls, and spirits just like God does. They exercise tremendous power and authority over cosmic realms. They engage in literal physical combat with each other. In Dake’s system, the primary difference between God and high-ranking angels seems to be one of degree rather than kind.

Dake writes extensively about different levels of authority in the universe, with various beings ruling over different spheres. He teaches about “thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers” as literal governmental positions in the cosmic hierarchy. While the Bible does mention these terms, Dake’s elaboration creates a complex celestial bureaucracy that resembles pagan polytheism more than biblical monotheism.

The Problem of Satan’s Power

Dake’s teaching about Satan further illustrates his departure from biblical monotheism. He attributes to Satan tremendous power and authority, teaching that Satan literally rules over vast cosmic territories and exercises real dominion over the earth. While the Bible does call Satan “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), orthodox theology understands this as referring to Satan’s temporary, permitted influence, not actual divine authority.

But in Dake’s system, Satan appears as almost a rival deity to God – less powerful perhaps, but operating independently within his own sphere of authority. This cosmic dualism, where God and Satan are locked in combat with genuine uncertainty about individual battles, reflects ancient heresies like Manichaeism more than biblical Christianity.

The Mormon Doctrine of Plurality of Gods

Mormonism explicitly teaches the existence of multiple gods. Joseph Smith declared: “I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods” (History of the Church 6:474).

The Mormon doctrine of eternal progression teaches that humans can become gods themselves. Lorenzo Snow, fifth president of the LDS Church, famously stated: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This creates an infinite regression of gods, each having progressed from humanity to deity.

While Dake never explicitly teaches that humans can become gods, his system of multiple divine-like beings, separate members of the Trinity, and powerful cosmic rulers creates a theological framework remarkably similar to Mormon cosmology. Both systems compromise biblical monotheism and introduce elements of polytheism.

Part VII: The Implications of Dake’s Theology

A Different God

The cumulative effect of Dake’s teachings is to present a God who is fundamentally different from the God of the Bible and historic Christianity. Dake’s God is:

• Corporeal rather than spiritual – possessing a body with parts that exists in space
• Limited rather than infinite – confined to location, restricted in power, bounded in knowledge
• One of three separate beings rather than three-in-one – part of a triumvirate rather than the Trinity
• Operating within a cosmic hierarchy – the highest of many powerful beings rather than the sole Creator and Sustainer of all

This is not the God revealed in Scripture. This is not the God worshipped by the church throughout history. This is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is a different god – one remarkably similar to the god of Mormonism.

A Different Gospel

Paul warned the Galatians about those who would preach “another gospel” and pronounced a curse on anyone who would do so (Galatians 1:6-9). He warned the Corinthians about those who preach “another Jesus” and “another spirit” (2 Corinthians 11:4).

When the nature of God is fundamentally altered, the gospel itself is changed. If God is not omnipresent, how can He hear all prayers? If He is not omnipotent, how can He save to the uttermost? If He is not omniscient, how can He know all our needs? If Christ did not retain His divine nature in the incarnation, how is He the God-man mediator between God and humanity?

Dake’s theology undermines the very foundation of the gospel by redefining who God is and what He can do. This is not a minor theological disagreement but a fundamental departure from biblical Christianity.

The Danger of Deceptive Teaching

What makes Dake’s teaching particularly dangerous is that it comes wrapped in the language of conservative, Bible-believing Christianity. Dake presents himself as a fundamentalist, a literalist, one who takes the Bible seriously. He fills his books with Scripture references and appears to have a high view of biblical authority.

But as we have seen, Dake radically reinterprets Scripture through his own theological grid. He takes anthropomorphic language literally when it suits his purpose (God has hands, eyes, etc.) but spiritualizes clear statements about God’s omnipresence and infinitude. He claims to be presenting biblical truth while actually teaching doctrines that contradict the plain teaching of Scripture.

This is the very definition of false teaching – using biblical language and concepts to promote unbiblical doctrine. It is particularly dangerous because unsuspecting Christians, seeing all the Bible verses and assuming orthodox meaning, can be gradually led into heresy without realizing it.

Part VIII: Examining Dake’s Hermeneutical Method

Hyper-Literalism and Its Dangers

One of the fundamental problems with Dake’s theology is his hermeneutical method – his approach to interpreting Scripture. Dake practices what can be called “hyper-literalism,” taking figurative language literally whenever possible, especially when it comes to descriptions of God.

When the Bible speaks of God’s “hand,” “eyes,” “arm,” or God “coming down,” Dake insists these must be understood literally. He argues that if we don’t take these descriptions literally, we are not believing the Bible. This sounds pious and faithful, but it actually demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works and how God reveals Himself to finite human beings.

The Bible itself indicates that God uses accommodative language when speaking to humans. When God says “I am not a man” (Numbers 23:19), He is telling us that human categories and descriptions cannot fully capture His infinite nature. When Scripture uses anthropomorphic language, it is helping us understand aspects of God’s character and activity, not giving us a physical description of His being.

Selective Literalism

Ironically, while Dake insists on literalism when it comes to anthropomorphic descriptions of God, he becomes quite non-literal when dealing with passages that clearly teach God’s omnipresence, infinitude, and spiritual nature. When Jesus says “God is spirit” (John 4:24), Dake has to explain that spirit beings have bodies. When the Bible says God fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24), Dake explains this as God’s influence, not His actual presence.

This selective literalism reveals that Dake is not simply following a consistent hermeneutical principle but is forcing Scripture to fit his preconceived theological system. He reads into Scripture his own understanding of God as a corporeal, limited being and then interprets all passages in light of this assumption.

Ignoring Historical and Theological Context

Another serious flaw in Dake’s hermeneutic is his disregard for historical and theological context. He interprets Scripture as if he were the first person to ever read it, ignoring centuries of careful theological reflection and biblical scholarship.

The early church fathers, dealing with various heresies, carefully worked through these very issues about God’s nature. The ecumenical councils addressed questions about the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and the attributes of God. The great theologians throughout church history – Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, and countless others – have carefully examined these doctrines.

Dake dismisses all of this as human tradition and claims to go directly to the Bible. But in doing so, he falls into errors that the church identified and refuted centuries ago. His teachings about God having a body were rejected as heretical in the early church. His separation of the Trinity into three beings was condemned as tri-theism. His limitation of God’s attributes was recognized as incompatible with biblical revelation.

Part IX: Specific Comparisons Between Dake and Mormon Theology

To fully understand the striking parallels between Dake’s theology and Mormonism, it is helpful to examine specific doctrinal points side by side:

1. The Nature of God’s Being

2. God’s Presence and Location

3. The Trinity

4. Christ’s Divine Nature During Incarnation

5. The Nature of Spirit

Part X: The Historical Development of These Heresies

Ancient Roots

The errors that Dake teaches are not new. They have appeared throughout church history in various forms and have consistently been rejected by orthodox Christianity. Understanding this historical context helps us see why these teachings are so dangerous.

The idea that God has a physical body appeared early in church history among groups influenced by pagan philosophy. Some Gnostic groups taught that the supreme God had emanated lesser divine beings, creating a hierarchy of deities. The Anthropomorphites of the fourth century insisted that God had a literal human form. These groups were condemned by the church as heretical.

Tri-theism – the teaching that the three persons of the Trinity are three separate gods – was condemned at various church councils. The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa) carefully articulated the distinction between the Greek words “ousia” (essence) and “hypostasis” (person) to preserve both the unity and diversity within the Trinity.

Medieval and Reformation Period

During the medieval period, careful theological work was done to articulate the attributes of God. Thomas Aquinas, building on Aristotelian philosophy and biblical revelation, demonstrated why God must be simple (not composed of parts), infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. The Protestant Reformers, while disagreeing with Rome on many issues, maintained these essential attributes of God.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the London Baptist Confession (1689) both clearly articulate the orthodox doctrine of God, explicitly rejecting the idea that God has a body or is limited in any way. These confessions represent the consensus of Protestant Christianity on the nature of God.

The Rise of Mormonism

In the 1820s and 1830s, Joseph Smith began teaching doctrines that radically departed from orthodox Christianity. His evolving theology moved from something resembling traditional Christianity to an increasingly polytheistic system. By the end of his life, Smith was openly teaching the plurality of gods, the corporeality of God the Father, and the potential for humans to become gods.

What makes Mormonism particularly deceptive is its use of Christian terminology with radically different meanings. Mormons speak of God, Christ, salvation, and the Trinity, but mean something entirely different from orthodox Christianity. This semantic deception has allowed Mormonism to present itself as another Christian denomination while actually teaching a completely different religion.

Dake’s Place in This History

Finis Dake, writing in the twentieth century, seems to have independently arrived at many of the same conclusions as Mormonism, though apparently without direct Mormon influence. This is a testimony to how certain theological errors tend to lead to similar conclusions. Once you begin to literalize anthropomorphic language about God, limit His attributes, and separate the persons of the Trinity, you end up with a theology that looks remarkably like Mormonism.

What makes Dake particularly dangerous is that unlike Mormons, who are generally recognized as outside orthodox Christianity, Dake’s materials are used by many evangelical and Pentecostal Christians who consider themselves orthodox. The Dake Study Bible is found in many Christian bookstores and on many pastors’ shelves. His teachings have influenced millions who may not realize they are imbibing heretical doctrine.

Part XI: Responding to Potential Objections

Objection 1: “Dake was just being literal with Scripture”

Some defenders of Dake argue that he was simply taking the Bible literally and that criticisms of his theology come from those who don’t believe the Bible. This objection misunderstands both proper biblical interpretation and Dake’s actual method.

First, being faithful to Scripture doesn’t mean taking every statement literally. Jesus said “I am the door” (John 10:9), but no one thinks He is made of wood with hinges. The Bible uses many literary devices including metaphor, anthropomorphism, hyperbole, and phenomenological language. Recognizing these is not denying the Bible’s truth but understanding how it communicates truth.

Second, as we’ve seen, Dake is not consistently literal. He’s selectively literal, taking anthropomorphisms literally while explaining away clear statements about God’s omnipresence and spiritual nature. This is not faithful biblical interpretation but imposing a preconceived system on Scripture.

Objection 2: “Dake believed in the Trinity”

Dake did use the word “Trinity” and claimed to believe in it. However, using orthodox terminology doesn’t guarantee orthodox theology. Mormons also claim to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but they mean something entirely different from orthodox Christianity.

The key issue is not whether Dake used the word “Trinity” but what he meant by it. When he describes three separate beings with separate bodies, souls, and spirits, he is not describing the orthodox Trinity but tri-theism. Words have meanings, and we must look at how Dake defined his terms, not just what terms he used.

Objection 3: “Dake taught many good things”

It’s true that not everything Dake taught was heretical. He affirmed the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ (though in a deficient way), salvation by grace through faith, and many other biblical truths. But this doesn’t excuse his serious errors about the nature of God.

Paul warned that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9). False teaching mixed with truth is often more dangerous than outright error because it’s harder to detect. The fact that Dake taught some biblical truths makes his errors more, not less, dangerous because people’s guards are down.

Objection 4: “This is just theological nitpicking”

Some might argue that these theological distinctions don’t really matter as long as someone loves Jesus and tries to live a good life. This objection fails to understand the importance of truth about God.

Jesus said, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). Knowing the true God is essential to eternal life. Paul said that those who preach another gospel are accursed (Galatians 1:8-9). John wrote that those who deny the true nature of Christ have the spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:1-3).

The nature of God is not a peripheral issue but the very heart of the Christian faith. If we get God wrong, we get everything wrong. Worship offered to a false god is idolatry, no matter how sincere. Truth matters, especially truth about God.

Part XII: The Practical Consequences of False Doctrine

Impact on Worship

What we believe about God directly affects how we worship Him. If God has a body and is localized in heaven, our worship becomes directed toward a distant, limited being rather than the omnipresent Spirit who is nearer than our own breath. If the Trinity consists of three separate beings, our worship becomes divided, uncertain of which person to address and how they relate to each other.

True worship, Jesus said, is in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). It requires both the right heart attitude and right understanding of whom we worship. Dake’s theology undermines both by presenting a false god who cannot be properly worshiped in spirit (since He supposedly has a body) or in truth (since the doctrine is false).

Impact on Prayer

If God is not omnipresent, how can He hear the prayers of millions of believers simultaneously around the world? If He is localized in heaven, are our prayers delayed in reaching Him? If He is limited in power, can He answer all our prayers? If Christ laid aside His divine attributes, is He truly able to intercede for us as our High Priest?

These are not abstract theological questions but practical issues that affect the believer’s prayer life. The confidence we have in prayer depends on knowing we are praying to an infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent God who hears and is able to answer.

Impact on Assurance

The security of the believer rests on the character and ability of God. Jesus said, “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:29). But if God is limited, if He is not omnipotent and omniscient, how can we be sure He is able to keep us?

Paul’s confidence that nothing can separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:38-39) is based on God’s infinite power and unchangeable nature. If God is the limited, corporeal being Dake describes, our assurance evaporates. We are left trusting in a god who may not be able to fulfill his promises.

Impact on Evangelism

When we present the gospel, we are calling people to trust in God for their eternal salvation. But which God? The infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent God of the Bible who is able to save to the uttermost? Or the limited, localized, corporeal god of Dake’s theology?

This is not a minor distinction. We are calling people to stake their eternal destiny on the character and ability of God. If we present a false god, we are not presenting the true gospel. We may use all the right words – sin, salvation, faith, grace – but if the God behind these words is false, the gospel itself is false.

Part XIII: The Biblical Response – Who God Really Is

God is Spirit

Jesus declared unequivocally: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). This is not metaphorical or symbolic language. Jesus is making a categorical statement about God’s essential nature. God is not a physical being with a body but pure Spirit.

Paul reinforces this, calling God “invisible” (1 Timothy 1:17), “whom no man hath seen, nor can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). If God had a physical body, He would be visible. The fact that He is invisible confirms His spiritual nature.

God is Infinite and Omnipresent

Solomon, at the dedication of the temple, declared: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?” (1 Kings 8:27). God cannot be contained or localized because He is infinite.

The Psalmist asks, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” (Psalm 139:7). He then lists the extremities of creation – heaven, hell, the sea – and declares that God is present in all. This is not just God’s influence or power but His actual presence.

God is One

The fundamental confession of biblical faith is that God is one. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This is not one among many gods, not the chief of three gods, but the only God.

Isaiah repeatedly emphasizes God’s uniqueness: “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isaiah 45:5). “I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 46:9).

The New Testament maintains this strict monotheism while revealing that this one God exists in three persons. These are not three gods or three beings but one God in three persons – a mystery beyond human comprehension but clearly revealed in Scripture.

God is Omnipotent

The angel Gabriel declared: “For with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37). This is an absolute statement. There are no genuine limitations on God’s power except what would be contradictory to His nature (like sinning) or logically impossible (like making a square circle).

God asks rhetorically: “Is any thing too hard for the LORD?” (Genesis 18:14). The answer is a resounding no. He is “able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3:20).

Part XIV: A Call to Discernment

The Need for Biblical Discernment

The proliferation of Dake’s teachings through his study Bible and other works highlights the urgent need for biblical discernment in the church today. Many Christians assume that if something is in a study Bible or taught by someone who claims to believe the Bible, it must be true. This naivety leaves believers vulnerable to false teaching.

The Bereans were commended because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). They didn’t simply accept Paul’s teaching because he was an apostle; they verified it against Scripture. How much more should we test the teachings of modern teachers against the Word of God?

The Danger of Personality Cults

One of the reasons false teaching spreads is the development of personality cults around certain teachers. People become so attached to a particular teacher or study Bible that they accept everything from that source uncritically. This is dangerous and unbiblical.

Paul warned: “That no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6). We are not followers of Dake, or Calvin, or Wesley, or any other human teacher. We are followers of Christ, and every human teacher must be tested against the Word of God.

The Importance of Historic Orthodoxy

While Scripture alone is our ultimate authority, we should not dismiss the wisdom of centuries of Christian reflection on Scripture. The historic creeds and confessions of the church represent the collective wisdom of godly believers who have carefully studied these issues. When someone like Dake comes along and contradicts what the church has believed for two millennia, we should be extremely cautious.

This doesn’t mean tradition is infallible, but it does mean we should have good biblical reasons for departing from historic orthodoxy. Dake’s reasons – a wooden literalism applied selectively – are not good reasons. They represent a failure to properly interpret Scripture, not a superior understanding of it.

Part XV: How These Errors Spread

The Appeal of Simple Answers

One reason Dake’s theology appeals to some is that it seems to provide simple, straightforward answers to complex theological questions. If God has a body like us, He becomes more relatable and understandable. If the Trinity is three separate beings, the mystery is removed. If everything in the Bible is taken literally, interpretation seems easier.

But God is not simple in this sense. He is infinite, incomprehensible, mysterious. Isaiah asks, “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” (Isaiah 40:18). The answer is that God is beyond comparison, beyond our full comprehension. Theology that removes all mystery has removed the true God and replaced Him with an idol of human imagination.

The Influence of Study Bibles

Study Bibles have become extremely influential in modern Christianity. Many believers spend more time reading the notes than the biblical text itself. When false teaching is embedded in a study Bible, it gains an air of authority it wouldn’t otherwise have.

The Dake Study Bible is particularly problematic because it contains extensive notes – over 35,000 of them. Many of these notes contain the heretical teachings we’ve examined. A believer using this Bible daily is being systematically indoctrinated into false doctrine, often without realizing it.

The Lack of Theological Education

Another factor in the spread of these errors is the general lack of theological education among believers. Many Christians have never studied the doctrine of God systematically. They don’t understand terms like omnipresence, omniscience, or Trinity in their historic theological meaning. This makes them vulnerable to teachers who use these terms with different definitions.

Churches bear some responsibility here. In the rush to be “practical” and “relevant,” many churches have abandoned serious doctrinal teaching. Believers are given milk but never meat, leaving them as “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).

Conclusion: Standing for Truth in an Age of Deception

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

This is not a matter of theological hairsplitting or denominational preference. The nature of God is the most fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. Get this wrong, and everything else collapses. Worship becomes idolatry, prayer becomes futile, and the gospel becomes powerless.

Finis Dake, despite his claims to be teaching biblical truth, promoted a god who is not the God of the Bible. His god – corporeal, limited, one of three separate divine beings – bears more resemblance to the god of Mormonism than to the God of orthodox Christianity. This is not a minor deviation but a fundamental departure from the faith once delivered to the saints.

The Call to Action

If you have been influenced by Dake’s teachings, either through his study Bible or other works, I urge you to carefully reconsider in light of Scripture. Don’t take my word for it – search the Scriptures yourself. But search them properly, recognizing figurative language, considering the whole counsel of God, and understanding passages in their context.

If your church or Bible study is using Dake materials, lovingly but firmly raise these concerns. Share this information with leadership. The health of the church depends on sound doctrine, and sound doctrine begins with a right understanding of God.

For pastors and teachers, I plead with you to take seriously your responsibility to guard the flock from false teaching. Don’t assume that because something is in a study Bible or because someone claims to believe the Bible, their teaching is sound. Test everything against Scripture, properly interpreted in its historical and grammatical context.

The Hope of Truth

While this article has necessarily focused on error, let us end with truth. The true God – infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, three-in-one – is worthy of our worship, able to save completely, and faithful to fulfill all His promises. He is not limited by space or time, not confined to a body, not one of many gods, but the only true and living God.

This God, revealed in Scripture and incarnate in Jesus Christ, is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think. He is present with us always, hears every prayer, knows every need, and works all things together for good to those who love Him. This is the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us hold fast to the truth about God, for in knowing Him truly is eternal life. Let us reject all false teaching that would diminish His glory or reduce Him to something less than He is. And let us worship Him in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him.

Final Words

Jesus warned that in the last days, false prophets would arise and deceive many (Matthew 24:11). Paul warned that the time would come when people would not endure sound doctrine but would heap up teachers to suit their own desires (2 Timothy 4:3). We are living in such times.

The teachings of Finis Dake represent exactly the kind of false doctrine we were warned about – teaching that sounds biblical but fundamentally undermines the truth about God. The fact that these teachings parallel Mormon doctrine so closely should alarm every Bible-believing Christian.

May God give us wisdom to discern truth from error, courage to stand for truth even when it’s unpopular, and love to speak the truth in a way that rescues those who have been deceived. The glory of God and the integrity of the gospel are at stake. May we be found faithful.

“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” – 1 Corinthians 2:2

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1:8

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” – 1 John 4:1

© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.