Finis Dake’s Heretical Views on God: A Comparison with Jehovah’s Witnesses

A Comprehensive Analysis Comparing Dake’s Theology with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Other Cult Teachings

Introduction: The Problem with Dake’s Theology

Finis Jennings Dake remains one of the most controversial figures in Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity. While many have benefited from his extensive biblical cross-references and study notes, a careful examination of his core theological teachings reveals dangerous departures from orthodox Christian doctrine that align disturbingly with the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cultic groups.

The purpose of this article is not to attack Dake personally or to diminish any positive contributions he may have made to biblical study. Rather, it is to warn believers about specific false teachings that contradict fundamental Christian doctrine and that have infected the thinking of many sincere Christians who use Dake’s materials without realizing the heretical nature of some of his core beliefs.

What makes Dake particularly dangerous is that he uses traditional Christian terminology while radically redefining the meanings of these terms. This practice, common among cults, allows false teaching to slip past the defenses of unsuspecting believers who assume that familiar words carry their traditional meanings.

Part I: Dake’s Denial of God’s Spiritual Nature

The Physical Body Doctrine

Perhaps the most shocking of Dake’s teachings is his insistence that God the Father possesses a physical, material body. This teaching strikes at the very heart of the biblical understanding of God’s nature and aligns Dake with groups like the Mormons and, in some respects, with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ materialistic view of reality.

While this statement might seem innocuous, Dake continues to explain that the word “God” refers to three completely separate beings, not one God in three persons as orthodox Christianity teaches. More troubling is his insistence that each of these beings has a physical body.

Notice how Dake redefines the Trinity. He doesn’t mean one God in three persons, but rather three separate persons who are united only in purpose. This becomes clearer as he elaborates:

This is a radical departure from biblical Christianity. Dake explicitly teaches that God the Father has a body – not just that Christ took on human flesh in the incarnation, but that the Father Himself has always had and will always have a physical body. This teaching is virtually identical to Mormon doctrine and contradicts Jesus’ clear teaching in John 4:24 that “God is spirit.”

Dake’s Redefinition of Biblical Terms

Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who redefine terms to fit their theology, Dake consistently takes biblical words and gives them new meanings. When the Bible says man was made in God’s “image,” Dake insists this means physical appearance:

This interpretation completely ignores the consistent biblical teaching that being made in God’s image refers to our rational, moral, and spiritual capacities – not physical appearance. Dake’s insistence on a physical interpretation leads him to limit God in ways that deny His omnipresence and infinite nature.

The Implications of Dake’s Physical God

If God has a physical body, as Dake teaches, then several biblical doctrines must be abandoned:

1. God’s Omnipresence: A being with a physical body cannot be everywhere present. Dake acknowledges this problem but tries to solve it by saying God is everywhere present through His Spirit, not in His actual being. This creates a division in God’s nature that the Bible never teaches.

2. God’s Infinity: Physical bodies are by definition finite and limited. Dake’s god is confined to space and time in ways the biblical God is not.

3. God’s Spirituality: Jesus explicitly stated “God is spirit” (John 4:24), not “God has a spirit.” The distinction is crucial. Dake reduces God to a being who merely possesses a spirit rather than one whose very essence is spiritual.

Part II: Dake’s Tritheism – Three Gods, Not One

The Denial of the Trinity

While Dake uses the word “Trinity,” his actual teaching is tritheism – belief in three Gods rather than one God in three persons. This becomes clear when we examine his statements carefully:

Notice the language: “three persons who have always been associated together.” This is not the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that there is one divine essence or being shared by three persons. Dake is teaching that there are three separate beings who work together – essentially three Gods who cooperate.

Comparison with Jehovah’s Witnesses

The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity, teaching instead that Jehovah alone is God, that Jesus is a created being (Michael the Archangel), and that the Holy Spirit is God’s active force, not a person. While Dake’s tritheism differs from JW doctrine in that he affirms the deity of all three persons, both systems fundamentally deny the essential unity of God’s being.

Consider these parallels:

While Dake and JWs arrive at different conclusions, both start from the same error: denying the biblical doctrine of one God existing as three persons. Dake solves the problem by making three Gods; JWs solve it by denying the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit.

The “Interpenetration” Heresy

To try to maintain some semblance of unity while teaching three separate Gods, Dake introduces his doctrine of “interpenetration.” According to this teaching, separate beings can dwell “in” each other through unity of purpose and will, not through shared essence:

This teaching creates massive theological problems. If the persons of the Trinity are completely separate beings who cannot truly indwell one another, then:

1. Jesus’ statement “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) is reduced to mere agreement of purpose, not unity of being.

2. The Holy Spirit’s indwelling of believers becomes metaphorical rather than real.

3. The incarnation itself becomes problematic – how can the divine and human natures be united in Christ if divine persons cannot truly indwell anything?

Part III: Dake’s Diminished Christology

Christ’s Loss of Divine Attributes

Another area where Dake’s teaching parallels that of the cults is in his understanding of Christ’s incarnation. While orthodox Christianity teaches that Christ retained His divine nature while adding human nature (the hypostatic union), Dake teaches that Christ actually gave up His divine attributes:

This is the kenotic heresy – the idea that Christ emptied Himself of divine attributes. Dake goes even further, teaching that Christ was as helpless as any human being apart from the Holy Spirit’s anointing:

This teaching has several dangerous implications:

1. It denies Christ’s true deity: If Christ ceased to possess divine attributes, He ceased to be God, for God cannot change (Malachi 3:6) or give up His essential attributes.

2. It undermines the incarnation: The miracle of the incarnation is that God became man without ceasing to be God. Dake’s teaching makes Christ merely a Spirit-anointed man, similar to the prophets.

3. It parallels JW Christology: While JWs teach Christ was never truly God, Dake teaches He stopped being truly God during His earthly ministry. Both systems deny that Jesus Christ was fully God while on earth.

Christ’s Limited Knowledge

Dake emphasizes Christ’s human limitations to such an extent that he undermines His deity:

While orthodox theology acknowledges that Christ, in His human nature, experienced certain limitations, Dake uses this to argue that Christ was not truly divine during His earthly ministry. This is precisely the kind of argument Jehovah’s Witnesses use to deny Christ’s deity.

Part IV: The Holy Spirit According to Dake

A Separate God with a Body

Dake’s teaching about the Holy Spirit is equally problematic. He insists that the Holy Spirit, like the Father and Son, has a physical body:

This contradicts the very name “Spirit” and the biblical descriptions of the Holy Spirit’s work. How can the Spirit fill all believers simultaneously (Ephesians 5:18) if He has a localized physical body? How can He be poured out (Acts 2:17) if He is a physical being?

Comparison with JW Pneumatology

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Holy Spirit is not a person but God’s “active force” – an impersonal power. While Dake affirms the Spirit’s personality, his insistence on the Spirit having a physical body creates similar problems:

1. Both systems struggle to explain the Spirit’s omnipresence

2. Both have difficulty with biblical metaphors about the Spirit (wind, water, fire, dove)

3. Both fail to adequately explain the Spirit’s relationship to believers

Part V: Dangerous Implications of Dake’s Theology

The Problem of Worship

If there are three separate Gods, as Dake teaches, which one should we worship? The Bible is clear that we are to worship one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), but Dake’s system presents us with three. This is not a minor theological quibble – it goes to the heart of the First Commandment.

Jehovah’s Witnesses solve this problem by saying only Jehovah should be worshiped, not Jesus. Dake tries to maintain that all three should be worshiped, but this is tritheism, not monotheism. Either way, both systems depart from biblical monotheism.

The Problem of Salvation

If Christ gave up His divine attributes, as Dake teaches, then His sacrifice on the cross was merely that of a Spirit-anointed man, not the infinite God-man. This raises serious questions about the sufficiency of His atonement. Only an infinite being can pay an infinite penalty for sin.

This parallels the JW problem with the atonement. Since they deny Christ’s deity, they must explain how a created being’s death can atone for humanity’s sins. Dake’s system, while different in details, faces the same fundamental problem.

The Problem of Biblical Authority

Perhaps most seriously, Dake’s willingness to redefine fundamental biblical terms and concepts undermines the authority and clarity of Scripture. If “God is spirit” can be twisted to mean “God has a physical body,” and if the Trinity can be redefined as three separate Gods, then words lose their meaning and Scripture becomes a wax nose that can be shaped to support any doctrine.

This is precisely the approach of the cults. Jehovah’s Witnesses produced their own translation (New World Translation) to support their doctrines. Mormons add additional scriptures. Dake, while using the standard Bible, simply redefines its terms to mean something entirely different from their historical and contextual meanings.

Part VI: Other Cult-like Teachings in Dake’s System

The Gap Theory

Dake strongly promoted the “Gap Theory” – the idea that there was a previous creation that was destroyed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. While this theory is not necessarily heretical, Dake’s version includes elaborate speculation about a pre-Adamic race, Lucifer’s rule over the earth, and other ideas that go far beyond Scripture:

This kind of elaborate speculation based on minimal biblical evidence is characteristic of cult systems, which often build complex mythologies to explain their unique doctrines.

Racial Theories

Some of Dake’s most troubling teachings involve race. In his notes, he taught that the races would be segregated in heaven and that interracial marriage was against God’s will. While these views were unfortunately common in his era, they represent another area where Dake allowed cultural prejudices and extra-biblical ideas to influence his theology.

This parallels the racist teachings found in some cult groups, such as the early Mormon teaching that black skin was a curse, or the Christian Identity movement’s racial theology. When teachers depart from sound biblical exegesis, they often import their cultural prejudices into their theological systems.

Excessive Literalism

Dake’s interpretive method involved an extreme literalism that ignored literary genre, cultural context, and figurative language. This led him to bizarre conclusions, such as teaching that God literally has wings because Psalm 91:4 speaks of being covered by His feathers.

This hyper-literalism is also found in groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who insist that only 144,000 will go to heaven based on a literal reading of Revelation 7, ignoring the symbolic nature of apocalyptic literature.

Part VII: How Dake’s Teachings Spread

The Dake Annotated Reference Bible

Dake’s most influential work is his Annotated Reference Bible, first published in 1963. This study Bible contains over 35,000 notes and has been widely used in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Many users, attracted by the extensive cross-references and detailed notes, are unaware of the heretical doctrines embedded throughout.

The danger of study Bibles with embedded false teaching cannot be overstated. When heretical ideas are presented alongside Scripture, they gain an authority they don’t deserve. Many Christians, assuming that anything in a “Bible” must be biblical, unconsciously absorb false doctrines.

Influence on the Charismatic Movement

Dake’s influence on certain segments of the Charismatic movement has been significant. Some prosperity teachers and faith healers have used Dake’s materials, particularly his teachings about the believer’s authority and power. While not all who use Dake’s materials accept his aberrant theology about God’s nature, the widespread use of his reference Bible has allowed his ideas to permeate certain circles.

The Problem of Selective Use

Many defenders of Dake argue that we can use his biblical cross-references and study helps while ignoring his theological errors. This is naive and dangerous for several reasons:

1. Theological assumptions affect interpretation: Dake’s false view of God’s nature influences how he interprets and cross-references passages.

2. Gradual influence: Constant exposure to false teaching, even when we think we’re rejecting it, can gradually influence our thinking.

3. Stumbling block to others: Using and recommending Dake’s materials, even selectively, can lead others into error.

4. Better alternatives exist: There are many sound study Bibles and reference works available that don’t contain heretical teachings.

Part VIII: Biblical Refutation of Dake’s Core Errors

God is Spirit, Not Physical

The Bible clearly teaches that God is spirit, not physical:

These passages make it clear that God, in His essential nature, is spirit and invisible. When the Bible speaks of God’s “hand,” “eyes,” or “face,” it is using anthropomorphic language – describing God in human terms so we can understand His actions and attributes, not teaching that God has a physical body.

The Trinity: One God, Three Persons

The Bible teaches both the unity of God and the distinction of persons:

The biblical doctrine of the Trinity maintains both truths: there is one God (not three), and this one God exists eternally as three distinct persons who share the same divine essence.

Christ’s Full Deity During the Incarnation

While Christ humbled Himself and took on human nature, He never ceased to be God:

The “emptying” (kenosis) of Philippians 2:7 refers to Christ taking on human nature and the limitations that came with it, not giving up His divine nature or attributes. He veiled His glory and chose not to exercise certain divine prerogatives, but He never ceased to be God.

Part IX: Theological Consequences of Accepting Dake’s Views

Loss of the True God

If we accept Dake’s teaching that God has a physical body and that the Trinity consists of three separate beings, we have lost the biblical God and replaced Him with an idol of our own making. The God of the Bible is infinite, omnipresent, and spiritual. Dake’s god is finite, localized, and physical. These are not the same being.

This is precisely what has happened in Mormonism, which teaches that God the Father has a physical body and was once a man who progressed to godhood. While Dake doesn’t go as far as Mormon theology, he starts down the same path by physicalizing God.

Undermining of Essential Doctrines

Once we accept that God has a physical body and that the Trinity is three separate beings, other doctrines begin to unravel:

1. The Incarnation: If God already has a body, what was unique about Christ taking on human flesh?

2. The Atonement: If Christ gave up His divine attributes, how could His sacrifice have infinite value?

3. Salvation: If the Holy Spirit is a separate God with a physical body, how does He indwell believers?

4. Prayer: If God is localized in a body, how can He hear the prayers of all believers simultaneously?

5. Providence: If God is physically limited, how can He sovereignly control all events?

Opening the Door to Further Error

History shows that doctrinal error rarely remains isolated. Once we compromise on fundamental truths about God’s nature, we become vulnerable to other deceptions. Many who have embraced Dake’s teachings have gone on to accept other aberrant doctrines, including:

– Excessive spiritual warfare teachings that give Satan more power than Scripture warrants

– Prosperity gospel teachings that misunderstand God’s purposes

– Prophetic speculation that goes beyond Scripture

– Racial theories that contradict biblical unity in Christ

Part X: Comparing Dake with Other Cultic Systems

Similarities with Mormonism

The parallels between Dake’s theology and Mormon doctrine are striking:

While Dake would have rejected many Mormon distinctives, his fundamental errors about God’s nature align remarkably with Mormon theology.

Similarities with Oneness Pentecostalism

Ironically, while Dake claimed to believe in the Trinity, his redefinition of it has some parallels with Oneness Pentecostalism (which denies the Trinity):

Both systems:

– Reject the orthodox understanding of the Trinity

– Struggle to explain the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit

– Use biblical terminology while redefining its meaning

– Emphasize experiential aspects of faith while neglecting sound doctrine

The Common Thread: Rejection of Orthodox Theology

What unites Dake’s teaching with various cultic systems is a rejection of historic, orthodox Christian theology. Like the cults, Dake:

1. Claims special insight or revelation that the church has missed for centuries

2. Redefines fundamental theological terms

3. Emphasizes peripheral issues while compromising core doctrines

4. Creates elaborate extra-biblical systems to support his views

5. Isolates his followers from mainstream Christian scholarship

Part XI: The Deceptive Use of Scripture

Proof-Texting Without Context

One of Dake’s most problematic methods is his use of proof-texting – citing verses out of context to support his predetermined conclusions. For example, he cites Daniel 7:9-14 to prove that the Father and Son have separate bodies, when the passage is actually apocalyptic imagery not meant to be taken as a physical description of God.

This is the same method used by Jehovah’s Witnesses when they cite Revelation 3:14 (calling Christ “the beginning of God’s creation”) to deny His eternal deity, ignoring that the Greek word means “origin” or “source,” not “first created being.”

Ignoring Clear Passages

While emphasizing obscure or symbolic passages that seem to support his views, Dake ignores clear, didactic passages that contradict them. For instance, he builds an elaborate theology of God having a body based on anthropomorphic language while ignoring Jesus’ clear statement that “God is spirit” (John 4:24).

This selective use of Scripture is a hallmark of cultic interpretation. Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same when they emphasize verses that seem to subordinate Christ while ignoring or reinterpreting clear statements of His deity.

Creating False Dichotomies

Dake often presents false either/or scenarios. For example, he argues that either God has a body or the verses speaking of God’s hands, eyes, etc., are meaningless. He fails to recognize the biblical use of anthropomorphic language to describe God’s actions in terms we can understand.

This is similar to how JWs argue that either Jesus is God or He is God’s Son, failing to understand that He can be both – eternally begotten of the Father while sharing the same divine essence.

Part XII: The Damage to Christian Faith

Confusion Among Believers

Dake’s teachings have created significant confusion among Christians, particularly in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Many believers, trusting his extensive biblical knowledge, have unconsciously absorbed his errors. This has led to:

– Weakened understanding of God’s nature

– Confusion about the Trinity

– Diminished view of Christ’s deity

– Misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit’s work

– Vulnerability to other false teachings

Stumbling Block to Unity

Christians who embrace Dake’s views find themselves at odds with historic Christianity. They cannot honestly recite the ancient creeds, participate fully in orthodox worship, or unite with other believers around fundamental truths. This creates division in the body of Christ.

Hindrance to Evangelism

When Christians present a distorted view of God, it hinders evangelism. How can we call people to worship the one true God if we ourselves are confused about who He is? How can we defend the faith against cultic errors if we have embraced similar errors ourselves?

This is particularly problematic when witnessing to cultists. How can a Christian using Dake’s theology effectively witness to a Mormon when both believe God has a physical body? How can they correct a Jehovah’s Witness about the nature of God when they themselves have departed from biblical teaching?

Part XIII: Responding to Common Defenses of Dake

“But Dake Was a Great Bible Scholar”

While Dake certainly had extensive biblical knowledge and spent countless hours in study, knowledge alone doesn’t guarantee sound interpretation. The Pharisees knew the Scriptures extensively but missed their true meaning. Many cult leaders are very knowledgeable about the Bible but use that knowledge to promote error.

Furthermore, true scholarship involves:

– Understanding original languages (Dake had limited training in Hebrew and Greek)

– Considering historical and cultural context

– Interacting with other scholars and church history

– Submitting one’s interpretations to peer review

– Acknowledging the limits of one’s knowledge

Dake often failed in these areas, making dogmatic pronouncements based on English translations and his own reasoning rather than careful exegesis.

“His Cross-References Are Still Valuable”

While Dake’s Bible contains many cross-references, these are influenced by his theological errors. He connects passages based on his faulty understanding, potentially leading readers to wrong conclusions. Using his cross-references is like using a map drawn by someone with a distorted view of geography – it might have some accurate points, but the overall picture is skewed.

“Many Good Christians Use Dake”

The fact that sincere Christians use Dake’s materials doesn’t validate his teachings. Many sincere believers have been led astray by false teaching throughout church history. Sincerity doesn’t equal truth. We must evaluate teaching by Scripture, not by who accepts it.

“Judge Not Lest You Be Judged”

Some defend Dake by claiming we shouldn’t judge his teachings. However, the Bible commands us to:

We are not judging Dake’s heart or eternal destiny – only God can do that. We are evaluating his teachings by Scripture, which is our responsibility as believers.

Part XIV: The Path Forward

For Those Who Have Used Dake

If you have been using Dake’s materials, consider these steps:

1. Examine Your Beliefs: Compare what you believe about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit with historic Christian creeds and confessions. Have you unconsciously absorbed any of Dake’s errors?

2. Return to Scripture: Study what the Bible actually says about God’s nature, using sound hermeneutical principles and consulting reliable commentaries and theological works.

3. Seek Sound Teaching: Find teachers and resources that are theologically sound. There are many excellent study Bibles and references that don’t contain heretical teachings.

4. Warn Others: If you have recommended Dake to others, consider warning them about his theological errors. This isn’t about attacking Dake personally but protecting fellow believers from false teaching.

For Church Leaders

Pastors and teachers have a special responsibility to protect their flocks from error:

1. Teach Sound Doctrine: Regularly teach on the nature of God, the Trinity, and the person of Christ. Don’t assume people understand these fundamentals.

2. Address Errors Specifically: When false teachings are influencing your congregation, address them specifically (while being gracious toward those who have been deceived).

3. Recommend Sound Resources: Guide your people to theologically sound study materials. Have a list of recommended resources available.

4. Create a Culture of Discernment: Encourage believers to test all teaching by Scripture, including your own.

For the Broader Church

The Dake controversy reminds us of several important truths:

1. Doctrine Matters: In an age that emphasizes experience and downplays doctrine, we must remember that what we believe about God matters eternally.

2. Historical Theology is Important: When someone claims to have discovered something the church has missed for 2000 years, extreme caution is warranted. God has been building His church throughout history, and we ignore that history at our peril.

3. Discernment is Essential: Every believer needs to develop discernment. This requires knowing Scripture, understanding sound doctrine, and being alert to error.

4. Unity Requires Truth: True Christian unity is based on shared truth about God, not superficial agreement that ignores fundamental differences.

Part XV: A Detailed Comparison with Jehovah’s Witnesses Theology

The Nature of Biblical Authority

Both Dake and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to accept the Bible as their authority while actually undermining it:

Jehovah’s Witnesses:

– Claim the Bible as their sole authority

– Produced their own translation (New World Translation) to support their doctrines

– Interpret Scripture through the lens of Watchtower publications

– Claim that true understanding comes only through their organization

Dake:

– Claims to take the Bible literally

– Redefines biblical terms to fit his theology

– Interprets Scripture through his own theological grid

– Presents his unique interpretations as obvious biblical truth

Both systems ultimately place human interpretation above the plain meaning of Scripture, though they claim to be thoroughly biblical.

The Doctrine of God

While arriving at different conclusions, both systems deny orthodox theology proper (the doctrine of God):

Notice how both systems, while disagreeing on specifics, agree in denying God’s spiritual nature and omnipresence as historically understood by Christianity.

Christological Errors

Both systems diminish Christ, though in different ways:

Jehovah’s Witnesses:

– Christ is a created being (Michael the Archangel)

– He is “a god” but not “the God”

– His resurrection was spiritual, not bodily

– He is not worthy of worship in the same way as Jehovah

Dake:

– Christ is a separate God from the Father

– He gave up His divine attributes during incarnation

– He was as helpless as any human without the Spirit’s anointing

– His deity is functionally denied during His earthly ministry

While JWs deny Christ’s essential deity and Dake affirms it in theory, both systems ultimately present a Christ who is less than the biblical God-man.

Understanding of Salvation

The errors about God’s nature inevitably affect soteriology (doctrine of salvation):

Jehovah’s Witnesses:

– Salvation requires faith plus works

– Must be part of their organization

– Only 144,000 go to heaven; others hope for paradise earth

– Christ’s ransom provides opportunity, not guarantee

Dake:

– While affirming salvation by grace, his system undermines it

– If Christ wasn’t fully God during His earthly ministry, how can His sacrifice be sufficient?

– The physical limitations he places on God raise questions about God’s ability to save

– His extreme dispensationalism sometimes suggests different salvation methods in different eras

Part XVI: The Broader Impact on Christian Doctrine

Impact on Worship

How we understand God directly affects how we worship Him. Dake’s theology creates serious problems for Christian worship:

1. Object of Worship: If there are three separate Gods, are we worshiping three beings or one? This confusion strikes at the heart of Christian monotheism.

2. Nature of Worship: Jesus said we must worship “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) because “God is spirit.” If God has a physical body, this statement loses its meaning.

3. Corporate Worship: How can the church unite in worship if we have fundamentally different understandings of who God is?

Impact on Prayer

Dake’s view of a physically limited God raises troubling questions about prayer:

– If God has a physical body in one location, how does He hear all prayers simultaneously?

– If the Holy Spirit is a separate God with a body, how does He intercede for us (Romans 8:26)?

– If the three persons are separate beings, to whom should we pray?

These aren’t merely academic questions. They affect the believer’s daily prayer life and confidence in God’s ability to hear and answer prayer.

Impact on Christian Living

Theology is never merely theoretical; it always affects practice. Dake’s errors have practical consequences:

1. Assurance: If God is physically limited, can He really work all things for our good (Romans 8:28)?

2. Providence: How can a physically limited God sovereignly control all events?

3. Presence: How can Christ’s promise “I am with you always” (Matthew 28:20) be true if He has a localized body?

4. Indwelling: How does the Holy Spirit indwell all believers if He has a physical body?

Part XVII: Examining Specific Passages Dake Misuses

Genesis 1:26 – The Image of God

Dake insists that being made in God’s image means physical appearance. Let’s examine this claim:

The Hebrew words tselem (image) and demuth (likeness) don’t require physical similarity. In fact, the Bible explicitly forbids making physical images of God (Exodus 20:4) precisely because He has no physical form to represent.

Daniel 7:9-14 – The Ancient of Days

Dake uses this apocalyptic vision to prove the Father has a body:

If we take this literally, we must also believe God has seven eyes (Zechariah 3:9) and wings (Psalm 91:4). Clearly, this is figurative language.

John 14:9 – “He Who Has Seen Me Has Seen the Father”

How does this verse fit with Dake’s theology of three separate Gods?

Acts 7:55-56 – Stephen’s Vision

Dake uses Stephen’s vision of Jesus standing at God’s right hand to prove two separate beings with bodies:

Part XVIII: Historical Orthodox Responses

The Early Church Fathers

The early church fathers consistently affirmed God’s spiritual nature and the Trinity:

Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108 AD): Referred to Christ as “our God” and affirmed the unity of the Godhead.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD): Defended the deity of Christ while maintaining monotheism.

Irenaeus (130-202 AD): Wrote extensively against Gnostic heresies that separated the Father and Son into different beings.

Tertullian (160-225 AD): Coined the term “Trinity” and explained the three persons sharing one substance.

Athanasius (296-373 AD): Championed Trinitarian orthodoxy against Arianism (which, like JW doctrine, denied Christ’s full deity).

None of these fathers taught that God has a physical body or that the Trinity consists of three separate beings. Dake’s theology would have been immediately recognized as heretical by the early church.

The Great Creeds

The historic creeds of Christianity unanimously reject Dake’s theology:

These creeds were formulated specifically to combat heresies like those Dake teaches. A person holding Dake’s views could not honestly recite any of these creeds.

The Reformers

The Protestant Reformers, while disagreeing with Rome on many issues, unanimously affirmed orthodox Trinitarian theology:

Martin Luther: Strongly affirmed the Trinity and God’s spiritual nature in his catechisms.

John Calvin: Devoted significant portions of his Institutes to defending the Trinity against various heresies.

Reformed Confessions: The Westminster Confession, London Baptist Confession, and others all affirm one God in three persons, explicitly denying multiple gods or God having a body.

Part XIX: Why This Matters for Today’s Church

The Current State of Theological Education

Many Christians today lack basic theological education, making them vulnerable to errors like Dake’s:

– Biblical illiteracy is at an all-time high

– Many churches emphasize experience over doctrine

– Few believers study church history or historic theology

– Individualistic interpretation is prized over community discernment

– Many pastors lack formal theological training

In this environment, teachers like Dake who appear knowledgeable and use biblical language can easily lead people astray.

The Pentecostal/Charismatic Context

Dake’s influence has been particularly strong in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Several factors contribute to this:

1. Emphasis on Experience: These movements often prioritize spiritual experience over doctrinal precision.

2. Suspicion of Traditional Theology: Some view traditional theology as “dead religion” versus “living faith.”

3. Independent Authority: Many leaders in these movements are self-taught and independent of denominational oversight.

4. Literalistic Hermeneutics: A tendency toward wooden literalism makes Dake’s interpretations seem plausible.

While these movements have brought valuable emphases to the church, the lack of theological grounding has made them susceptible to doctrinal errors.

The Need for Theological Renewal

The church desperately needs renewed emphasis on sound theology:

1. Catechesis: Systematic instruction in basic Christian doctrine

2. Historical Awareness: Understanding how the church has interpreted Scripture through the ages

3. Theological Education: Training pastors and teachers in sound doctrine

4. Discernment: Teaching believers to test all things by Scripture

5. Unity in Truth: Rallying around core doctrines while allowing liberty in secondary matters

Part XX: Practical Steps for Churches and Individuals

For Individual Believers

If you’re concerned about Dake’s influence in your own thinking or church, consider these steps:

1. Study the Basics:

– Get a good systematic theology textbook

– Study the historic creeds

– Learn about the Trinity from orthodox sources

– Understand proper biblical interpretation methods

2. Evaluate Your Beliefs:

– Can you affirm the Apostles’ Creed without reservation?

– Do you believe God is spirit or physical?

– Do you believe in one God or three?

– Is Jesus fully God and fully man?

3. Seek Help:

– Talk to a theologically trained pastor

– Join a study group focused on doctrine

– Read books by trusted theologians

– Don’t be embarrassed to ask questions

For Pastors and Teachers

Leaders have a special responsibility to protect against false teaching:

1. Audit Your Resources:

– Check what study Bibles your people are using

– Review your church library

– Evaluate curriculum materials

– Know what teachers are influencing your congregation

2. Teach Proactively:

– Don’t wait for problems to arise

– Regularly teach on the nature of God

– Explain the Trinity clearly and repeatedly

– Address common misconceptions

3. Create Safeguards:

– Establish doctrinal standards for teachers

– Require theological training for leaders

– Maintain accountability structures

– Connect with theologically sound networks

For Denominations and Networks

Larger bodies can help protect against doctrinal error:

1. Educational Standards:

– Require theological education for ordained ministers

– Provide ongoing training opportunities

– Develop accessible theological resources

– Support theological institutions

2. Doctrinal Accountability:

– Maintain clear statements of faith

– Regular doctrinal examination of leaders

– Processes for addressing theological error

– Support for churches dealing with false teaching

Part XXI: Common Questions and Concerns

“Isn’t This Just Theological Nitpicking?”

No. The nature of God is not a minor issue. It’s the foundation of all Christian theology. If we’re wrong about who God is, everything else crumbles. The early church fought hard to preserve these truths because they knew their importance.

Consider: If God has a body, He’s not infinite. If He’s not infinite, He’s not truly God. If the Trinity is three separate beings, we’re polytheists, not monotheists. These are not minor distinctions but fundamental to the Christian faith.

“But Dake Helped My Faith”

Many people testify that Dake’s materials helped them. This is possible because:

1. His Bible contains Scripture, which is powerful regardless of notes

2. Some of his practical teachings may be helpful

3. God can use imperfect tools

4. Not all of his teaching is wrong

However, poison mixed with good food is still dangerous. We don’t need to accept error to receive blessing. Better resources exist that don’t require us to compromise fundamental truths.

“Who Are We to Judge?”

We’re not judging Dake’s heart or salvation – only his teaching. The Bible commands us to:

– Test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

– Watch out for false teaching (Matthew 7:15)

– Contend for the faith (Jude 3)

– Correct doctrinal error (Titus 1:9)

This isn’t optional. Leaders especially are accountable for what they teach (James 3:1).

“Doesn’t This Cause Division?”

False teaching causes division, not correcting it. When part of the church embraces error while another part maintains truth, division already exists. The solution isn’t to ignore the error but to lovingly correct it and restore unity based on truth.

Paul confronted Peter publicly when he compromised the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14). This wasn’t divisive; it preserved the church’s unity around truth.

Conclusion: Standing for Truth in Love

This extensive examination of Finis Dake’s theology reveals teachings that fundamentally contradict biblical Christianity. His views on God having a physical body, the Trinity being three separate beings, and Christ’s diminished deity during incarnation align more closely with cultic teachings than with orthodox Christianity.

The parallels with Jehovah’s Witnesses theology, while not exact, are substantial:

– Both deny the biblical nature of God

– Both redefine fundamental theological terms

– Both claim biblical authority while undermining it

– Both lead to a diminished view of Christ

– Both create systems incompatible with historic Christianity

These are not peripheral issues but strike at the heart of the Christian faith. A god with a physical body is not the God of the Bible. Three separate divine beings are not the Trinity. A Christ who gave up His divine attributes is not the biblical God-man.

Yet our response must be characterized by love, not hatred; truth, not compromise; clarity, not confusion. Many who have embraced Dake’s teachings are sincere believers who have been misled. They need patient instruction, not harsh condemnation.

For those who have used Dake’s materials, this analysis should prompt serious reflection and study. Return to Scripture with sound interpretive methods. Study the great creeds and confessions. Learn from the wisdom of the church through the ages. Most importantly, seek the truth about God as He has revealed Himself, not as we might imagine Him to be.

For church leaders, this situation underscores the vital importance of theological education and doctrinal vigilance. We cannot assume people understand fundamental truths. We must teach clearly, repeatedly, and passionately about who God is and why it matters.

For the broader church, Dake’s influence serves as a warning. When we neglect sound doctrine in favor of experience, when we prize novel interpretation over historic orthodoxy, when we isolate ourselves from the wider body of Christ, we become vulnerable to deception.