Finis Dake’s Theological Errors on God’s Immutability

Introduction: The Critical Importance of God’s Immutability

The doctrine of God’s immutability – the teaching that God does not change in His essential being, attributes, purposes, or promises – stands as one of the foundational pillars of conservative Christian theology. This doctrine provides believers with confidence in God’s faithfulness, assurance of His promises, and trust in His eternal purposes. When this doctrine is compromised, the entire structure of Christian faith and practice is threatened.

Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987), while presenting himself as a conservative Bible teacher and creating widely-used study materials including the Dake Annotated Reference Bible, taught a view of God that fundamentally contradicts the historic Christian understanding of divine immutability. Through careful examination of his writings, particularly his massive work “God’s Plan for Man,” we discover that Dake presents a God who is subject to change, surprise, and emotional fluctuation in ways that orthodox Christianity has consistently rejected as incompatible with biblical revelation.

This critique aims to document Dake’s specific teachings on God’s immutability, demonstrate how these teachings depart from conservative Christian orthodoxy, and provide biblical support for the traditional understanding of God’s unchangeable nature. The goal is not merely to criticize but to defend the essential truth about God’s nature that provides the foundation for Christian faith and life.

Part I: Dake’s Redefinition of Divine Immutability

Chapter 1: Dake’s Explicit Statements on God Changing

One of the most troubling aspects of Dake’s theology is his explicit teaching that God literally changes. In “God’s Plan for Man,” Dake makes this startling statement:

This statement reveals Dake’s fundamental misunderstanding of divine immutability. He acknowledges the traditional terminology but then immediately contradicts it by asserting that God “has had to change His plans.” The phrase “had to” is particularly problematic, suggesting that God is somehow compelled by circumstances beyond His control to alter His intentions. This presents a God who is reactive rather than sovereign, contingent rather than absolute.

Conservative Christian theology has always maintained that while God’s dealings with humanity may appear to change from a human perspective, God Himself – including His eternal purposes and decrees – never changes. What Dake interprets as God “changing His plans” is actually the outworking of God’s eternal and unchangeable decree, which includes His responses to human actions that He has foreknown from eternity.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, representing centuries of Reformed theological reflection, states: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (Chapter III, Section 1). This understanding preserves both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility without compromising divine immutability.

Chapter 2: God’s Emotions According to Dake

Throughout his writings, Dake consistently portrays God as experiencing emotional changes in the same way humans do. He interprets biblical anthropomorphisms – descriptions of God using human characteristics to help us understand divine actions – as literal descriptions of God’s emotional state. This leads to a view of God as emotionally unstable and subject to the fluctuations of feeling that characterize fallen human nature.

For example, when discussing passages where Scripture speaks of God “repenting” or “being grieved,” Dake takes these as literal descriptions of God experiencing regret or sorrow in response to unexpected human actions. He fails to recognize that these are anthropomorphic expressions designed to communicate God’s consistent moral response to sin in terms humans can understand, not literal descriptions of emotional changes in the divine nature.

Conservative theologians have long recognized that when the Bible speaks of God repenting or changing His mind, it is using anthropomorphic language to describe God’s consistent response to human actions from a human perspective. God’s “repentance” is not a change in His essential nature or eternal purposes, but rather the execution of His unchangeable will in response to human choices He has always foreknown.

The great Protestant Reformer John Calvin explained this principle clearly: “When Scripture speaks of God’s repentance, it does not mean that He changes His eternal counsel, but that He acts differently toward men according to their different behaviors, though His counsel remains the same.” This understanding preserves both the biblical language and the essential doctrine of divine immutability.

Chapter 3: The Problem of Conditional Prophecy in Dake’s System

Dake frequently appeals to conditional prophecies as evidence that God changes His mind. He argues that when God makes a promise or threat conditional upon human response, and humans fail to meet the conditions, God must change His original intention. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of divine foreknowledge and eternal decree.

In Dake’s view, God makes plans based on hoped-for human responses, then must adjust these plans when humans act differently than He desired. This presents God as genuinely uncertain about future human choices and therefore unable to plan with certainty. Such a view reduces God to a supremely powerful but ultimately limited being who must constantly adapt to unexpected circumstances.

Conservative theology maintains that conditional prophecies do not represent uncertainty in God’s mind but rather reveal the moral structure of God’s governance. When God says, “If you do X, then Y will happen,” He is not uncertain about whether X will occur. Rather, He is revealing the consistent principles by which He governs the moral universe while simultaneously working out His eternal and unchangeable decree.

The case of Jonah and Nineveh illustrates this principle. When Jonah proclaimed, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4), this was a conditional threat, though the condition was not explicitly stated. God knew from eternity that Nineveh would repent and that He would spare the city. The threat of judgment and the subsequent mercy were both part of God’s unchangeable plan to bring about Nineveh’s repentance and demonstrate His character to both Jonah and future generations.

Part II: Biblical Foundations for Divine Immutability

Chapter 4: Clear Biblical Statements of God’s Unchangeability

The Scripture provides numerous clear statements affirming God’s immutability. These passages form the foundation for the conservative Christian understanding of God’s unchangeable nature. Dake’s theology requires either ignoring these passages or reinterpreting them in ways that drain them of their clear meaning.

These passages explicitly deny that God changes. Malachi 3:6 directly links Israel’s preservation to God’s immutability – because God does not change, His covenant promises remain sure despite Israel’s unfaithfulness. James emphasizes that God has no “variableness” or “shadow of turning,” using astronomical metaphors to emphasize the absolute constancy of God’s nature. The passage in Hebrews applies this same unchangeability to Jesus Christ, affirming His deity through His immutability.

Numbers 23:19 is particularly significant because it explicitly denies that God “repents” in the way humans do. This passage directly contradicts Dake’s interpretation of those passages that speak of God repenting. The Hebrew word used here (nacham) is the same word used in passages that speak of God “repenting,” yet here it is explicitly denied of God. This demonstrates that we must understand God’s “repentance” in a way that does not contradict His immutability.

Chapter 5: The Theological Necessity of Divine Immutability

Divine immutability is not merely an abstract philosophical concept but a theological necessity that undergirds numerous essential Christian doctrines. Without an unchangeable God, the entire structure of Christian faith collapses into uncertainty.

1. The Reliability of God’s Promises
If God can genuinely change His mind, then no promise of God can be considered absolutely certain. Every divine promise would be contingent upon God not changing His mind before fulfillment. This would destroy the basis for saving faith, which rests upon the absolute reliability of God’s promise of salvation to those who believe. The author of Hebrews explicitly links the certainty of God’s promise to His immutability: “Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation” (Hebrews 6:17-18).

2. The Efficacy of Prayer
Paradoxically, while Dake might think a changeable God makes prayer more effective (since we could persuade God to change His mind), the opposite is true. If God were changeable, we could never be certain that our prayers align with His will, since His will itself would be in flux. The efficacy of prayer depends upon an unchangeable God who has ordained both the means (our prayers) and the ends (His answers) in His eternal decree.

3. The Security of Salvation
The doctrine of eternal security, or the perseverance of the saints, depends entirely upon God’s immutability. If God could change His mind about saving someone, then no believer could have assurance of salvation. Paul’s confidence that “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6) rests upon God’s unchangeable purpose in salvation.

4. The Coherence of Prophecy
If God genuinely changes His mind, then prophetic revelation becomes inherently unreliable. Any prophecy could be subject to revision based on God’s changing intentions. This would undermine the entire prophetic witness of Scripture and make it impossible to have confidence in biblical predictions about the future.

Chapter 6: Understanding Anthropomorphic Language

One of Dake’s fundamental errors is his failure to properly interpret anthropomorphic language in Scripture. Anthropomorphism is the practice of describing God in human terms to help finite minds grasp infinite realities. When properly understood, anthropomorphic language enhances our understanding of God without compromising His transcendent attributes.

The Bible frequently uses anthropomorphic language to describe God. It speaks of God’s hands, eyes, and ears. It describes God as walking, sitting, and standing. It attributes to God human emotions like anger, grief, and joy. Conservative theology has always recognized these as accommodations to human understanding, not literal descriptions of God’s being.

When Scripture speaks of God “repenting” or “changing His mind,” it is using anthropomorphic language to describe God’s consistent response to human actions from a human perspective. From our limited viewpoint, it appears that God has changed when He responds differently to changed human behavior. In reality, God’s response is the outworking of His eternal and unchangeable decree.

Consider the example of King Hezekiah’s extended life (2 Kings 20:1-6). God first announced through Isaiah that Hezekiah would die, then after Hezekiah’s prayer, announced that fifteen years would be added to his life. From a human perspective, God changed His mind. From the divine perspective, God eternally decreed both the initial announcement, Hezekiah’s prayer, and the extension of life. The entire sequence was part of God’s unchangeable plan to teach Hezekiah dependence upon divine mercy and to accomplish His purposes in Judah’s history.

Part III: Historical Theology and Divine Immutability

Chapter 7: The Patristic Witness

The early church fathers, those who led the church in the centuries immediately following the apostles, unanimously affirmed divine immutability. Their testimony is important because it shows that the church has understood God to be unchangeable from its earliest days.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), perhaps the most influential of the church fathers, wrote extensively on divine immutability. In his work “The City of God,” Augustine argues that God’s immutability is essential to His perfection: “For He is called the Almighty for no other reason than that He can do whatsoever He wills, and His will is not overcome by any power. But if anything should be done which He did not will, He would not be the Almighty; and therefore nothing is done unless the Almighty wills it to be done, either by permitting it or by Himself doing it.”

Augustine understood that God’s immutability does not mean He is static or unresponsive, but rather that His responses flow from His unchangeable nature and eternal decree. He writes: “God’s knowledge does not vary with the objects known, nor does His will change with the effects produced. He knows all things unchangeably, and wills all changes unchangeably.”

John Chrysostom (349-407 AD), the great preacher of the early church, explained biblical passages about God repenting in terms that preserve divine immutability: “When you hear that God repents, or is angry, or rejoices, do not imagine that God is subject to any passion. These are words of condescension. The divine nature is without passion, not subject to change or alteration. But since we would not otherwise understand what is said unless we hear it in this way, the Scripture condescends to our weakness.”

Gregory of Nyssa (335-395 AD) provided philosophical argumentation for divine immutability: “Everything that is subject to change is, in the very nature of change, moving from what it is to what it is not. But God, being infinite and perfect, cannot change to something better (being already perfect) nor to something worse (which would deny His divinity). Therefore, God is absolutely immutable.”

Chapter 8: Medieval Theological Development

The medieval period saw the further development and refinement of the doctrine of divine immutability. The scholastic theologians, using both biblical exegesis and philosophical reasoning, provided comprehensive defenses of God’s unchangeable nature.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) argued that immutability is a necessary attribute of the greatest conceivable being. In his “Proslogion,” Anselm writes: “You are whatever it is better to be than not to be. It is better to be immutable than mutable; therefore, You are immutable. For if You could change, You could change either for the better or for the worse. You cannot change for the better, for You are already supremely perfect. You cannot change for the worse, for this would contradict Your nature as the supreme good. Therefore, You cannot change at all.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the prince of scholastic theologians, provided the most comprehensive treatment of divine immutability in medieval theology. In his “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas argues that God’s immutability follows necessarily from His pure actuality: “God is altogether immutable. First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.”

Aquinas carefully distinguished between real change in God (which he denied) and relational changes in creatures with respect to God (which he affirmed). When Scripture speaks of God becoming angry or showing mercy, Aquinas explains, the change is in the creature’s relationship to God’s unchanging justice and mercy, not in God Himself.

Chapter 9: The Reformation Affirmation

The Protestant Reformers, while breaking with Rome on many issues, unanimously affirmed the traditional doctrine of divine immutability. They saw this doctrine as essential to the gospel itself, particularly to the doctrines of justification by faith alone and the perseverance of the saints.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) strongly affirmed divine immutability, particularly in his debate with Erasmus over free will. In “The Bondage of the Will,” Luther argues that God’s immutability is the foundation of Christian confidence: “It is fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal, and infallible will. This bombshell knocks free will flat and utterly destroys it.”

Luther understood that divine immutability does not make God distant or unresponsive, but rather ensures that His promises in Christ are absolutely reliable: “The Word of God is sure and cannot fail, because God Himself is unchangeable. What He has promised in Christ, He will certainly perform.”

John Calvin (1509-1564) made divine immutability a cornerstone of his theological system. In the “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Calvin writes: “God remains always the same, and is not subject to the changes which we perceive in ourselves. When Scripture attributes to Him repentance, change of purpose, or any similar affection, it speaks according to our capacity, describing not what God is in Himself, but how He appears to us.”

Calvin particularly emphasized how divine immutability relates to election and perseverance: “The foundation of our salvation is the immutability of God’s decree. Those whom God has chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, He will preserve to the end, for His purpose cannot fail.”

The Reformed Confessions consistently affirm divine immutability. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states: “There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty” (Chapter 2, Section 1).

The Belgic Confession (1561) similarly affirms: “We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good” (Article 1).

Part IV: Philosophical Considerations

Chapter 10: The Metaphysical Necessity of Divine Immutability

Beyond biblical and historical arguments, there are compelling philosophical reasons why God must be immutable. These arguments, while not replacing Scripture, help us understand why the biblical revelation of God’s immutability is not only true but necessarily true.

The Argument from Divine Perfection
If God is absolutely perfect, as Scripture and reason affirm, then He cannot change. Change implies moving from one state to another. This movement must be either from worse to better, from better to worse, or between states of equal value. God cannot change from worse to better, for this would mean He was not perfect before the change. He cannot change from better to worse, for this would mean He is not perfect after the change. And change between states of equal value would be pointless and inconsistent with divine wisdom. Therefore, the perfect God must be immutable.

The Argument from Divine Simplicity
Classical theism affirms that God is simple, meaning He is not composed of parts. If God could change, He would have to have potential that could be actualized, which would mean He is composed of actuality and potentiality. But composition implies dependence on parts and therefore limitation. Since God is unlimited and independent, He must be simple, and therefore immutable.

The Argument from Divine Eternity
God exists outside of time in an eternal present. For God, there is no past or future, only an eternal now. Change requires temporal succession – a before and after. Since God transcends time, He cannot experience temporal succession and therefore cannot change. What appears to us as God acting differently at different times is actually the intersection of His one eternal act with our temporal experience.

The Argument from Divine Aseity
God is self-existent (aseity), depending on nothing outside Himself for His being. If God could change, something would have to cause that change. If the cause is outside God, then God is dependent and not truly God. If the cause is within God, then God is divided against Himself. Therefore, the self-existent God must be immutable.

Chapter 11: Responding to Philosophical Objections

Several philosophical objections are commonly raised against divine immutability. Dake’s position reflects some of these objections, though he does not articulate them philosophically. Understanding and answering these objections strengthens the case for biblical immutability.

Objection 1: Immutability Makes God Impersonal
Some argue that an immutable God cannot truly relate to His creation in personal ways. If God cannot change, how can He respond to prayers or interact with human history?

Response: This objection confuses immutability with immobility. God’s immutability means His essential nature, attributes, and purposes do not change, not that He cannot act. In fact, God’s immutability ensures that He consistently acts according to His perfect nature. His responses to human actions are real responses, but they flow from His unchangeable nature and eternal decree. God’s personal relationship with creatures is not despite His immutability but because of it – He is immutably personal, immutably loving, and immutably responsive according to His perfect nature.

Objection 2: Biblical Language Suggests God Changes
The Bible frequently speaks of God repenting, becoming angry, or changing His mind. Doesn’t this prove that God is mutable?

Response: This objection fails to account for the Bible’s use of anthropomorphic language. Scripture must describe the infinite God in terms finite humans can understand. When the Bible speaks of God repenting, it is describing God’s unchangeable moral response to changing human behavior from a human perspective. God’s “repentance” is not a change in His essential nature or eternal decree, but the execution of His unchangeable will in response to human actions He has always foreknown.

Objection 3: The Incarnation Proves God Can Change
In the incarnation, God became man. Doesn’t this represent a change in God?

Response: The incarnation involved the Second Person of the Trinity taking on human nature, not the divine nature changing. The Word became flesh by assuming human nature to His divine person, not by transforming His deity into humanity. As the Chalcedonian Definition states, Christ’s two natures exist “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” The divine nature remained immutable even as the divine Person took on human nature.

Objection 4: Creation Represents a Change in God
Before creation, God was alone; after creation, He had a relationship with creatures. Doesn’t this represent a change in God?

Response: This objection confuses external relations with internal change. God’s act of creation was eternal in His decree, though temporal in its execution. God did not acquire new knowledge or purposes when He created; He eternally knew and willed creation. The change was in creatures coming into existence, not in God’s being or purposes. God is eternally the Creator, even though the effect of His creative act appears in time.

Part V: Practical Implications of Divine Immutability

Chapter 12: Immutability and Christian Assurance

The doctrine of divine immutability is not merely theoretical but has profound practical implications for Christian life and faith. Dake’s compromise of this doctrine undermines several crucial aspects of Christian assurance and practice.

Assurance of Salvation
The believer’s assurance of salvation rests fundamentally on God’s immutability. If God could change His mind about saving someone, no one could have genuine assurance. The apostle Paul’s confidence in Romans 8:38-39 that nothing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” depends entirely on God’s unchangeable purpose in salvation.

Consider the golden chain of salvation in Romans 8:29-30: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son… Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” This unbreakable chain depends on God’s immutable purpose. If God could change His mind at any link in this chain, the entire structure of salvation would collapse into uncertainty.

The author of Hebrews explicitly connects our spiritual confidence to God’s immutability: “Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us” (Hebrews 6:17-18). Our “strong consolation” comes from God’s immutable counsel, not from a God who might change His mind.

Confidence in Prayer
While it might seem that a changeable God would be more responsive to prayer, the opposite is true. If God could genuinely change His mind, we could never be certain our prayers align with His will, since His will itself would be subject to change. We could never claim the promise of 1 John 5:14-15: “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.”

The immutability of God means that He has eternally decreed both our prayers and His answers to them. Our prayers are not attempts to change God’s mind but rather the means He has ordained to accomplish His unchangeable purposes. As J.I. Packer wisely observes, “God’s immutability is not a prison that keeps Him from responding to His people, but the foundation that ensures He will always respond according to His perfect wisdom and love.”

Trust in God’s Promises
Every promise of God in Scripture depends on His immutability for its reliability. If God could change, then His promises would be subject to revision. The entire edifice of faith, which is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1), would crumble if God’s promises were not anchored in His unchangeable nature.

Consider God’s promise to Abraham: “In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore” (Genesis 22:17). Thousands of years later, Paul could confidently declare that this promise remains sure because “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:29). God does not change His mind about His promises.

Chapter 13: Immutability and Divine Providence

The doctrine of providence – God’s governance and care for His creation – depends entirely upon divine immutability. Dake’s view of a changing God undermines confidence in God’s providential care and leads to a practical deism where God must constantly adjust His plans to unexpected circumstances.

The Comprehensiveness of Providence
Scripture teaches that God’s providence extends to every detail of creation. Jesus taught that not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the Father’s will (Matthew 10:29) and that the very hairs of our heads are numbered (Matthew 10:30). This comprehensive providence requires an immutable God who works “all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11).

If God must change His plans in response to unforeseen human choices, as Dake suggests, then His providence is not comprehensive but partial. There would be gaps in God’s governance where human free will operates independently of divine control. This would mean that some events in history occur outside of God’s purposeful plan, making history ultimately meaningless and chaotic.

The Purposefulness of Providence
Romans 8:28 declares, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” This promise requires an immutable God who has an unchangeable purpose that He is working out through all events. If God’s purposes could change, we could not be confident that all things are working together for good.

Joseph’s declaration to his brothers illustrates this truth: “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Genesis 50:20). God did not react to the brothers’ evil by changing His plan to bring good out of it. Rather, He eternally purposed to use their evil for good. His immutable purpose included both their sin and His overruling of it for salvation.

The Comfort of Providence
The comfort believers derive from divine providence depends on God’s immutability. In times of suffering and confusion, Christians can rest in the knowledge that their circumstances are not outside God’s control or purpose. As the Heidelberg Catechism beautifully expresses, we can be patient in adversity and thankful in prosperity because we trust our faithful God and Father who has all creatures so in His hand that they cannot move without His will.

If God were changeable, as Dake suggests, this comfort would evaporate. We could never be certain whether our current suffering is part of God’s good purpose or the result of His changed mind. We could not trust that He is working all things for our good because His definition of “good” might change.

Chapter 14: Immutability and the Character of God

Divine immutability is inseparably connected to God’s other attributes. Compromising immutability, as Dake does, necessarily compromises our understanding of God’s entire character.

God’s Faithfulness
God’s faithfulness depends directly on His immutability. Lamentations 3:22-23 declares, “It is of the LORD’s mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.” God’s faithfulness is “great” precisely because He does not change. His mercies are “new every morning” not because He has changed overnight, but because His unchanging compassion meets us fresh each day.

Paul emphasizes this connection in 2 Timothy 2:13: “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.” God’s faithfulness is not merely a choice He makes but flows necessarily from His immutable nature. He “cannot deny himself” – He cannot act contrary to His unchangeable character.

God’s Justice
Divine justice requires immutability. If God’s standards of right and wrong could change, then justice would be arbitrary. What is condemned today might be approved tomorrow. This would destroy the moral order of the universe and make righteous living impossible, since we could never know with certainty what God requires.

Abraham’s rhetorical question, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25), assumes that God’s justice is unchangeable. The very concept of God as judge requires that His standards of judgment do not change. As Malachi 3:6 indicates, it is because God does not change that His covenant people are not consumed – His unchangeable justice is tempered by His unchangeable mercy.

God’s Love
The security of God’s love depends on His immutability. Jeremiah 31:3 records God’s words: “Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.” An everlasting love requires an immutable God. If God could change, His love might cease to be everlasting.

John’s profound statement that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) does not mean merely that God chooses to love, but that love is His very nature. Since God’s nature is immutable, His love is immutable. This is why Paul can confidently assert that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38-39).

Part VI: Examining Specific Problem Areas in Dake’s Theology

Chapter 15: Dake’s Misunderstanding of Divine Repentance

One of the most significant areas where Dake’s theology diverges from orthodox Christianity is in his interpretation of biblical passages that speak of God “repenting” or “changing His mind.” Dake takes these passages literally, arguing that they prove God actually changes His intentions and emotions in response to human actions.

Dake interprets these passages to mean that God literally experiences regret, changes His emotional state, and alters His plans based on unforeseen human choices. This interpretation creates numerous theological problems and contradicts clear biblical statements about God’s immutability.

The Hebrew Word “Nacham”
The Hebrew word typically translated “repent” in these passages is “nacham.” This word has a range of meanings including “to be sorry,” “to console oneself,” “to have compassion,” and “to relent.” When applied to God, it describes God’s response to human actions from a human perspective, not a change in God’s essential nature or eternal purposes.

Significantly, the same Hebrew word is used in 1 Samuel 15:29, where it explicitly denies that God repents: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.” This verse appears in the very context where verse 11 says God “repented” of making Saul king. This apparent contradiction is resolved when we understand that verse 11 uses anthropomorphic language to describe God’s consistent response to Saul’s disobedience, while verse 29 makes the theological point that God does not repent in the human sense of changing His mind due to error or new information.

The Principle of Anthropomorphism
When the Bible says God “repents,” it is using anthropomorphic language – describing God in human terms to help us understand divine actions. Just as the Bible speaks of God’s “hand” without meaning He has a physical hand, it speaks of God “repenting” without meaning He changes His mind in the human sense.

Conservative theologian Louis Berkhof explains: “The Bible speaks of God’s repenting, but this is only an anthropomorphic way of speaking. In reality, it is not God who changes, but man who changes his relation to God. God’s treatment of man is always determined by man’s attitude toward God. God’s immutable holiness requires Him to treat the godly differently from the ungodly. When the godly become ungodly, His treatment of them must change, but He Himself remains the same.”

Case Study: The Flood Narrative
Genesis 6:6 states that “it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Dake interprets this to mean God regretted His decision to create humanity and emotionally suffered from disappointment. This interpretation portrays God as having made a mistake He later regretted.

The orthodox interpretation understands this passage as anthropomorphic language expressing God’s holy response to human sin. God’s “grief” is His consistent, eternal opposition to sin expressed in terms humans can understand. The flood was not God’s impulsive response to unexpected human wickedness, but the execution of His eternal purpose to judge sin while preserving a remnant through Noah.

That God knew humanity would sin before He created them is evident from passages like Ephesians 1:4, which states that God chose believers in Christ “before the foundation of the world,” and Revelation 13:8, which speaks of “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” God’s plan for redemption preceded creation, showing He knew humanity would fall into sin. The flood, therefore, was not a divine afterthought but part of God’s eternal purpose.

Case Study: Saul’s Rejection
The account of Saul’s rejection as king provides another clear example of how to properly interpret divine “repentance.” In 1 Samuel 15:11, God says, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king.” Yet in verse 29 of the same chapter, Samuel declares, “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.”

How do we reconcile these statements? Verse 11 uses anthropomorphic language to express God’s response to Saul’s disobedience from a human perspective. It appeared that God had changed His mind about Saul. Verse 29 gives the theological reality – God does not repent in the sense of changing His mind due to error or unforeseen circumstances. God eternally knew Saul would disobey and eternally purposed to replace him with David. The entire sequence was part of God’s unchangeable plan to establish David’s throne and ultimately bring forth the Messiah through David’s line.

Chapter 16: Dake’s View of Divine Emotions

Another area where Dake’s theology seriously deviates from orthodox Christianity is his understanding of divine emotions. Throughout his writings, Dake portrays God as experiencing emotional changes similar to human mood swings, becoming angry, then pleased, then grieved, based on human actions.

The Problem with Emotional Mutability in God
If God experiences emotional changes as Dake suggests, several problems arise:

1. God would be dependent on creation for His emotional state. This would mean creatures could manipulate God’s feelings, making God dependent on His creation for His happiness or sorrow. This contradicts God’s aseity (self-existence) and independence.

2. God would be less than perfectly blessed. If God can become genuinely grieved or angered, He is not always in a state of perfect blessedness. This contradicts 1 Timothy 1:11, which speaks of “the glorious gospel of the blessed God,” and 1 Timothy 6:15, which calls God “the blessed and only Potentate.”

3. God’s emotional responses would be temporal. Emotional changes occur in time, with a before and after. If God experiences such changes, He would be subject to temporal succession, contradicting His eternality.

The Orthodox Understanding of Divine Emotions
Conservative theology has always maintained that when Scripture attributes emotions to God, it is using anthropomorphic language to help us understand God’s consistent attitudes toward various objects. God’s “anger” is His eternal and unchangeable opposition to sin. His “love” is His eternal and unchangeable benevolence toward His creatures. His “grief” is His eternal and unchangeable hatred of evil.

These divine attitudes are not emotions in the human sense – they do not involve change, passion, or disturbance in God’s being. Rather, they are aspects of God’s unchangeable nature as it relates to different objects. God eternally loves righteousness and eternally hates sin. When a sinner repents, it is not God’s attitude that changes but the sinner’s relationship to God’s unchanging love and justice.

Thomas Aquinas explained this principle well: “God loves some things more than others. But this is not because of any change in God; rather, it is because of the different relationships that creatures have to His unchanging goodness. The sun enlightens the whole world by one and the same light; yet it enlightens different places differently, not because of any change in the sun, but because of the different conditions of the places.”

Part VII: The Dangers of Dake’s Position

Chapter 17: Theological Consequences

Dake’s denial of divine immutability has serious theological consequences that ripple throughout the entire system of Christian doctrine. These consequences demonstrate why maintaining biblical immutability is crucial for orthodox faith.

1. Undermining Divine Sovereignty
If God must change His plans in response to unforeseen human choices, He is not truly sovereign. Sovereignty means God controls all things according to His will. A God who must constantly adjust His plans to unexpected circumstances is not sovereign but reactive. This contradicts numerous biblical passages that affirm God’s absolute sovereignty, such as Isaiah 46:10: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”

2. Destroying the Basis for Prophecy
If God can genuinely change His mind, then prophetic revelation becomes inherently unreliable. Any prophecy could be subject to revision based on God’s changing intentions. This would undermine the entire prophetic witness of Scripture. How could we trust prophecies about Christ’s second coming if God might change His mind? How could we be certain of prophetic promises if they depend on a mutable God?

3. Eliminating Eternal Security
The doctrine of eternal security or perseverance of the saints depends entirely on God’s immutability. If God could change His mind about saving someone, then no believer could have assurance of salvation. The promise of John 10:28-29 that no one can pluck believers out of the Father’s hand would be meaningless if the Father Himself might change His mind about holding them.

4. Compromising Divine Perfection
A God who changes cannot be perfect. Change implies improvement or deterioration. If God improves, He was not perfect before. If He deteriorates, He is not perfect now. Either option denies divine perfection. Matthew 5:48 commands, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” This command assumes God’s perfection is absolute and unchangeable.

5. Negating the Efficacy of Christ’s Atonement
The efficacy of Christ’s atonement depends on God’s immutable purpose in salvation. If God could change His mind about what satisfies His justice, then Christ’s sacrifice might become insufficient. The book of Hebrews emphasizes the finality and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice based on God’s unchangeable will: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

Chapter 18: Practical and Pastoral Dangers

Beyond theological problems, Dake’s position creates serious practical and pastoral dangers for believers. These dangers show why maintaining biblical immutability is essential for healthy Christian life and ministry.

Loss of Spiritual Assurance
If God can change His mind, believers lose the foundation for spiritual assurance. Every promise becomes conditional not only on human response but on God not changing His mind. This creates spiritual anxiety and uncertainty. Believers could never rest in Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” Perhaps God might change His mind about condemning them.

Undermining of Prayer
While Dake might argue that a changeable God makes prayer more effective (since we could persuade Him to change His mind), the opposite is true. If God’s will is mutable, we could never pray with confidence according to His will. We could never claim the promise of 1 John 5:14-15 about receiving what we ask according to His will, since His will itself would be in flux.

Destruction of Comfort in Suffering
The comfort believers find in suffering depends on God’s immutable purpose working all things for good (Romans 8:28). If God’s purposes can change, then current suffering might not be part of a good plan but the result of God’s changed intentions. This destroys the theological foundation for comfort in affliction.

Creation of an Unstable Worldview
A mutable God creates an unstable worldview where nothing is certain. If the ultimate reality (God) is changeable, then everything built upon that foundation is unstable. This leads to relativism in theology, ethics, and practice. Without an unchanging standard, everything becomes negotiable.

Encouragement of Manipulative Religion
If God can be persuaded to change His mind, religion becomes an attempt to manipulate God rather than submit to Him. This encourages a pagan view of prayer and worship where the goal is to change God’s mind rather than align ourselves with His will. It turns Christianity into a form of magic where the right words or actions can force God to change.

Conclusion: The Vital Importance of Maintaining Biblical Immutability

Through this extensive examination of Finis Dake’s teachings on divine immutability, we have seen how his position represents a serious departure from biblical Christianity. While Dake used orthodox terminology, he fundamentally redefined these terms in ways that contradict both Scripture and the consistent witness of the Christian church throughout history.

The doctrine of divine immutability is not a peripheral issue that Christians can agree to disagree about. It is foundational to the entire structure of Christian theology and practice. When God’s immutability is compromised, every other doctrine is affected. The reliability of Scripture, the efficacy of Christ’s atonement, the security of salvation, the meaningfulness of prayer, and the comfort of divine providence all depend upon an unchangeable God.

Dake’s errors stem from a fundamental methodological flaw – the failure to properly interpret anthropomorphic language in Scripture. By taking figurative descriptions of God literally, Dake created a theology that portrays God as essentially like a very powerful human being, subject to change, surprise, and emotional fluctuation. This is not the God of the Bible, who declares, “I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6).

The conservative Christian position, maintained consistently from the early church fathers through the Reformers to faithful theologians today, affirms that God is absolutely immutable in His being, perfections, purposes, and promises. This does not make God static or unresponsive, but rather ensures that He always acts in perfect consistency with His holy, wise, and loving nature.

As we have seen, when Scripture speaks of God “repenting” or “changing His mind,” it uses anthropomorphic language to describe God’s unchangeable moral response to changing human behavior from a human perspective. God’s immutable nature includes His consistent response to different situations – He always opposes sin and always shows mercy to the penitent. What appears as change from our limited perspective is actually the intersection of God’s one eternal act with our temporal experience.

The practical implications of this doctrine are immense. Because God does not change, His promises are absolutely reliable. Because He does not change, our salvation is secure. Because He does not change, prophecy is certain. Because He does not change, prayer has meaning and efficacy. Because He does not change, we can trust His providence even in the darkest circumstances.

In our age of constant change and uncertainty, the doctrine of divine immutability provides an anchor for the soul. In a world where everything shifts and nothing seems permanent, we can rest in the unchangeable God who is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). This is not merely theological abstraction but practical truth that sustains believers through every trial and triumph of life.

We must, therefore, reject Dake’s revisionist teaching on divine immutability and hold fast to the biblical doctrine that has sustained the church for two millennia. We must teach our children and our churches that God does not change, that His purposes cannot be frustrated, and that His promises cannot fail. This is not only theological accuracy but pastoral necessity, for only an immutable God can provide the security, comfort, and hope that human hearts desperately need.

May we echo with confidence the words of the hymn writer:

“Great is Thy faithfulness, O God my Father,
There is no shadow of turning with Thee;
Thou changest not, Thy compassions, they fail not;
As Thou hast been Thou forever wilt be.”

This is the God of the Bible – immutable, faithful, and forever worthy of our complete trust and unwavering worship. Any teaching that compromises this fundamental truth, regardless of its source or popularity, must be recognized as error and rejected in favor of the faith once delivered to the saints.

© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.