A Response from Mark Allison to an article by Jeff Spencer and Steve Bright

Note: This article has been prominently featured on several websites. "Dake's Dangerous Doctrines" is filled with inaccuracies, quotes taken out of context and misinformation. To set the record straight, I've added my response (in red) below:

 

DAKE'S DANGEROUS DOCTRINES

 

by Jeff Spencer and Steve Bright

 

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 5 (2004). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS

 

The teachings of Finis Jennings Dake, author of The Dake Annotated Reference Bible, have had a profound impact on conservative Pentecostalism and have been embraced by charismatic Word-Faith preachers such as Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn. Dake's views range from orthodox to outlandish, to decidedly unorthodox. He rejected the theology of ÒdenominationalismÓ and instead adopted a hyperliteral (already the author is using a pejorative description to characterize Dake's method of Biblical interpretation) interpretation of Scripture that resulted in erroneous doctrines, such as the view that each person in the Trinity has a body, soul, and spirit (Dake's definition of the Trinity can be found in his book God's Plan for Man on page 51. "TRINITY. This means the union of three persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one (unified) Godhead or divinity-so that all three persons are one in unity and eternal substance, but three separate and distinct persons as to individuality), and that Jesus' resurrected body was not physical. (Quote from the note titled "What a Christian Must Believe" in the Dake Annotated Reference Bible: 10. That Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, not spiritually. He is alive forevermore in His earthly, resurrected flesh-and-bone body and represents people before God as their High Priest and Savior (Lk. 24:39; Jn. 10:17-18; Acts 1:3, 11; 2:22-34; 4:10-12; Rom. 1:4; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15; 1 Th. 4:13-16; Phil. 3:20-21; Rev. 1:18; Zech. 13:6). His aberrant teachings also include a salvation by grace plus works (Nowhere in Dake's writings will you find any indication that Dake believed we are saved by works. Dake's note in Acts 15:11 bears this out: {a} grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved  This is why salvation cannot be of works (Rom. 3:23-31; 4:2, 6; 9:11; 11:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2-14; Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5).  This does not, however, mean that grace will remit sins without repentance and faith (Lk. 13:1-5; Eph. 2:8-9), or keep one automatically justified without walking and living in the Spirit (Rom. 6:14-23; 8:1-13; Gal. 5:16-26; Col. 1:6-7; 3:5-10; 1 Jn. 1:7).  Neither does this mean that Jews are saved by the law and Gentiles by grace (Acts 15:11; Rom. 10:9-17; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). and a gospel of health and prosperity (For Dake, if the Scriptures clearly stated a promise of God, then that was good enough for him: "If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His sight, and wilt give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth theeÓ (Ex. 15:26). Dake's study materials emphasize the authority of the Bible (at least the authors admit this fact), but they contain many unbiblical and dangerous doctrines that sometimes have as much in common with the cults as with historic Christian theology. (This statement is absolutely false, and is never supported by the authors).

 

 

 

 

 

Each Christian denomination can point to certain preachers and teachers who have helped shape and propagate its theology and practice. One such prominent figure in Pentecostal and charismatic circles is Finis Jennings Dake (1902–87), author of The Dake Annotated Reference Bible. The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements states, Dake's Òimpact on conservative Pentecostalism cannot be overstated.Ó1

 

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

 

Following his conversion to Christianity at the age of 17 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Dake allegedly received a Òspecial anointingÓ that enabled him to quote hundreds of Scripture verses without having previously memorized them, earning him the nickname Òthe Walking Bible.Ó He studied the Bible diligently and claimed to have spent nearly 100,000 hours over the course of his ministry digging into its teachings.2

 

Dake first preached in 1925 and was ordained by the Assemblies of God denomination two years later at the age of 24.3 After working as a pastor and evangelist in Texas and Oklahoma, he moved to Zion, Illinois, in order to become the pastor of the Christian Assembly Church, a union that lasted until 1937.4 In Zion, he also founded Shiloh Bible Institute, which ultimately merged with Central Bible Institute and which was located in the home formerly owned by controversial faith healer John Alexander Dowie.5

 

During Dake's ministry in Zion, he was the center of a raging controversy. In 1937, he was convicted of violating the Mann Act by willfully transporting 16-year-old hitchhiker Emma Barelli across the Wisconsin state line Òfor the purpose of debauchery and other immoral practices.Ó6 Dake pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in a Milwaukee jail,7 where he Òintended to pass most of his timeÉwriting a book — a commentary on the Bible.Ó8

 

(The following is material taken from Dake's Biography)

On February 9, 1937, Finis Jennings Dake was sentenced to six months in jail, after reluctantly pleading guilty to violation of the Mann Act.

It seems that Dake had transported a sixteen year–old girl across state lines. Dake swore that nothing wrong had occurred, and his lawyer called the incident Òan unfortunate mistake.Ó

Years later, he told Lester Sumrall that he had passed this girl hitchhiking along the side of the road in winter time. He gave her a ride and talked to her about Shiloh Bible Institute. He said she was a runaway, belligerent toward her parents and toward school. He said:

Now, I knew better than to pick up a girl hitchhiker, although I was twice her age. But I didn't act on my better judgment. I took her with me, feeling sorry for her, and thinking I could turn her life around. As soon as I let her out of my car, however, she called her parents in Illinois and laughed in their faces. She told them a real handsome man with a beautiful face gave her free transportation all the way to St. Louis. When they got my name, they immediately took out a warrant.

Everyone Stood By Dake

While many years have passed and little is known about the specific events of this tragic situation, there are a number of observations that can be made.

Zion, Illinois, was more or less a border town, situated only about three and a half miles from the Wisconsin state line. In the course of everyday life, many residents of Zion crossed the border every day. And, in fact, Dake was assisting a pioneer church there getting its roots. Earl Hoyt remembers:

I went with him a number of times to a large room above a tavern in uptown Kenosha, where we sang and I played my sax and Brother Dake would speak to those who came out.

 Under the pastorate of James Davidson, the Kenosha Assembly of God moved into its new location on Roosevelt Road in 1935. So Dake was travelling back and forth from Zion to Kenosha on a regular basis in his assistance to this church. While we in no way lessen the seriousness of the Mann Act, which involved transportation of minors across state lines, for those living in and around this area, crossing the state line was a common everyday occurrence.

Dorothy stood by Dake. She believed his account that nothing had happened. She was steadfast in her defense of her husband. She stated that the girl in question was in fact a hitchhiker and that she herself had met the girl. She said that Dake was taking her to East St. Louis in order that the girl would have a home and where Dake's sister, Mrs. Daisy Smith, found work for her as a domestic. Dorothy said that those opposed to Dake and his teachings had learned of this incident and had pressed the charges. It is also worth noting that Dake and Dorothy were married for sixty–two years prior to their homegoing in 1987. Indeed, Dorothy stood by her man.

The staff and students of Shiloh Bible Institute also stood by Dake during this incident. In fact, during Dake's absence from the church while serving time, Rev. Theodore Kessel—an instructor at Shiloh—assisted Dorothy in the day–to–day activities of the pastoral work at Christian Assembly. Rev. Kessel later went on to be Secretary of the Illinois District from 1942–1948.

The members of Christian Assembly supported Dake. In one church service over 300 members rose in support of their pastor. In fact, the day of his trial the courtroom was crowded with more than 100 of the members from Christian Assembly who were there to lift up and encourage him. One of the members of Christian Assembly said:

The church people really prayed for and stuck by the Dakes and dearly loved them through it all.

  To this day Christian Assembly still has kind words to say about Dake. For their church history states Dake:

. . . left behind a great legacy in the form of his Annotated Reference Bible and the Great Lakes Bible Institute.

Government prosecutors themselves admitted that their investigations of the girl showed no evidence that she was, in their modest terms of the day, Òruined.Ó According to records of the event, this gave some substance to Dake's story.

Dake's attorney, Eugene Sullivan, told the court that Dake had made an unfortunate mistake, but added that no improper relations took place during the trip. He added that Òthere is no actual moral offense committed here.Ó

As for the girl, she herself said that nothing happened. She even wrote her father when she arrived in East St. Louis, telling him not to worry about her Òbecause I have got religion.Ó Government agents had said the girl was under the spell of the minister and believed he would bring her into the church, but she said that she accompanied him voluntarily, that he never forced her to do anything and that nothing happened. It is also worth noting that till her dying day she never changed her story. She insisted nothing happened.

What About Dake?

Dake denied the charges, saying he didn't transport the girl for immoral purposes. He just wanted to help her find work.

 He maintained that nothing happened. However, to get this thing behind him and to spare his family and the ministry the shame of an embarrassing trial, he pleaded guilty and threw himself on the mercy of the court.

In a farewell sermon to Christian Assembly, where the building was packed to capacity and with people standing in the aisles,  Dake talked about this whole ordeal:

I have learned a lesson, I have had a little sense knocked into my head. I am disgusted with the devil. If the devil had a tail and I could get hold of it . . . I'd grab it and wrap it around a tree.

 But Dake said that in spite of it all, ÒI am the happiest man this side of Heaven.Ó In the farewell service Dake played his slide trombone and then his beloved Dorothy addressed the congregation and promised to carry on in her husband's absence. Dorothy closed the service with the singing of the hymn, Thy will Be Done.

The Spirit of God was mightily upon this service and at the close of the meeting the Dake's had an altar call and twenty people came forward and accepted Christ!

 

Milwaukee House of Corrections

Dake entered the Milwaukee House of Corrections on Monday, February 15, 1937. He was to serve six months. Because of his good behavior he only served five months and was released on Friday, July 16, 1937.

When he left the institution he said he left without bitterness. He said that confinement ÒgalledÓ him, but he could not be bitter and still be a Christian. He had used the time to write and study the Bible. He said he was going home and wanted no reception and no fanfare.

His First Sunday Back

On his first Sunday back to Christian Assembly, on July 18, when he arrived in the building, the people enthusiastically welcomed him with open arms. They all began to sing a hymn and at this point, Dake threw up his arms and said, ÒNow friends, let's just forget our sorrows and the past, I feel God and I know that He's here.Ó

Amid a chorus of Òhalleluiahs,Ó he declared ÒI'm not going to preach a sermon, I am just going to make a few remarks.Ó He then talked and warned the people against human weakness and urged them to forget the past. The church was full and at the conclusion of the meeting many of those came forward to hug and shake the hand of their pastor. 

His Smile Returns

As Dake would soon end his stay in Zion he ended it on a very high note. Finette who was now almost 11 years old had brought much joy to the Dake family, but now a new arrival would come. On Wednesday, June 15, 1938, Dorothy and Dake welcomed into the world their second child—Rhoda Annabeth Dake. Annabeth was born in Shiloh House and would bring a smile back into the heart of the Dake family. Changes were taking place and Dake was moving with the change.

Even though Dake had much support in Zion, he felt as though it was best for him to now leave. It was a very difficult decision but God's church and the school must come first. Because of what had happened he and his family needed a new start in some other place, and the school and church needed new leadership.

Christian Assembly would continue to reach out in its ministry to Zion for many years to come. Shiloh Bible Institute would continue, but it too would face changes. The school later became know as the ÒGreat Lakes Bible Institute.Ó It was placed under the control of the Illinois District of the Assemblies of God. The Great Lakes Bible Institute eventually combined with Central Bible Institute in Springfield, Missouri.

Summing It Up

Lester Sumrall makes an important observation: ÒGod brought good out of what the devil meant for evil.Ó

 In jail, Dake had time to work on his writing and his Bible annotations. And just as Howard Carter had received the basic revelation and outline on the gifts of the Holy Spirit in jail, and as the classic Christian book, Pilgrim's Progress, came out of John Bunyon's time spent in prison, so too Dake would redeem the time.

Most of us want blessing without suffering, but if there had not been a cross, there would have been no resurrection. 

It is interesting to note that no matter how people judge these events in Zion, Dake himself never let it hamper his ministry. For as we shall see, he and Dorothy went on to even greater ministry. They continued to write and publish books culminating in the Dake Annotated Reference Bible. Daily, for the rest of their lives, they would spend themselves for the cause of Christ. As we look at the remainder of Dake's ministry, it becomes increasingly evident that he lived a life of faithfulness and devotion to God and his kingdom.

 

 

Dake returned to his family and the Christian Assembly Church, who stood by his side and maintained his innocence during the ordeal. His relationship with the Assemblies of God denomination, however, soon ended. He then moved to Cleveland, Tennessee, where first he became a minister in the Church of God denomination and then pastored an independent Pentecostal church.9 Dake remained a Pentecostal minister until his death in 1987 of Parkinson's disease.10

 

DAKE'S WRITINGS

 

Dake's long career culminated in two published works. God's Plan for Man: The Key to the World's Storehouse of Wisdom contains the very heart of Dake's teaching. This 52-lesson course purports to be Òa library of Bible knowledge in compact formÉmore than 10,000 subjects, sermon outlines, and questions fully answered — all supported and proved by 33,000 references to Scripture passages.Ó11 Dake's most popular work is The Dake Annotated Reference Bible, which many Pentecostals consider to be the top study Bible.12 His copious notes and commentary accompany the King James Version text and are taken largely from God's Plan for Man. The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements states that it Òbecame the Ôbread and butter' of many prominent preachers and the Ôstaple' of Pentecostal congregations.Ó13 Dake Publishing Company, operated by the Dake family, sells nearly 40,000 copies of the Dake Bible each year.14 Finis Dake, Jr., asserts, ÒAs far as I know it is the only study Bible with a full gospel or charismatic orientation still in print which has not changed something in order to appeal to a wider audience.Ó15

 

Many Pentecostal and charismatic teachers praise Dake's work. Jimmy Swaggart once wrote, ÒFinis Dake was a scholar unparalleled. I owe my Bible education to this man.Ó16 Word-Faith preacher Larry Ollison, midwest regional director for International Convention of Faith Ministries, praises the Dake Bible as a good reference tool with Òlists and useful information that cannot be found easily anywhere else.Ó17 David Roebuck, director of the Pentecostal Research Center at Lee University, declares, ÒThe Dake study Bible has many helpful tools and charts.Ó18 Leading Word-Faith teachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and Benny Hinn also have embraced Dake's study Bible and teachings.

 

THE BIBLE

 

Dake, to his credit, argues that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, authoritative Word of God; therefore, it cannot contain contradictions. His effort to systematize biblical teachings on hundreds of topics appears to be sincere. He argues that the Bible was written in simple human language and should be interpreted at face value: ÒWe shall let what God says mean what He says and reject any theory of men to the contrary.Ó19 Dake's overriding rule of interpretation is, ÒTake every statement of the Bible as literal when it is at all possible and where it is clear that it is literal, otherwise, it is figurative.Ó20 Dake applies this often-repeated rule unwaveringly, and his simple, literal interpretations probably account for the popularity of his Bible commentary. His attention to the biblical text results in many correct observations and interpretations; however, his overly simplistic, hyperliteral approach results in many incorrect interpretations (in the authors' estimation) as well as unorthodox and problematic doctrines in his theology.

 

Numerous evangelical Bible scholars and apologists have expressed concern over Dake's unorthodox teachings, but no major work has been published to expose and correct them (I've never met a Bible scholar who wouldn't write a lengthy treatise on ANY doctrinal issue at the drop of a hat. Who are these "numerous evangelical Bible scholars?"). Dake's popularity, however, demands an evaluation of his teachings in light of historic Christian orthodoxy. This article touches on only a few.

 

GOD'S NATURE

 

Many of Dake's doctrinal errors begin with his misunderstanding of God's nature. He states, ÒGod has a spirit body with bodily parts like man.Ó21  (Dake fought against the notion that God was not "real" in some sense. Here is a quote from one of Dake's notes on the book of Job: "All the characters of the book of Job recognized God to be a Person, not some invisible nothingness floating around everywhere filling all matter and space.") The only difference between God's body and man's, according to Dake, is that God's body is a spiritual substance while man's body is a material substance. He offers several lines of faulty reasoning to support his view. First, he argues that since the natural body will be raised a spiritual body, this means that spirit beings have bodies:

 

Paul speaks of the human flesh-and-bone bodies in the resurrection as being ÒspiritualÓ (1 Cor. 15:42–44), and Òlike unto his glorious bodyÓ (Luke 24:39; Phil. 3:20–21); so if human bodies that become spiritualized are still material and tangible, then certainly God and other spirits can have bodies just as real and still be spirit beings. After all, John 4:24 is a mere statement of fact — that God is a Spirit — but it does not define and analyze a spirit.22

 

First Corinthians 15:42–44, however, does not refer to the nature of God, but to the nature of the resurrected human body (The authors here are arguing against something Dake never said. OF COURSE 1 Cor. 15:42-44 is speaking of the resurrected human body. Dake's whole point is provided in the quote the authors give above: "if human bodies that become spiritualized are still material and tangible, then certainly God and other spirits can have bodies just as real..."). ÒSpiritual body,Ó moreover, in this context, does not mean a body made of spiritual substance (Basically, the authors are saying that when the Bible says "Spiritual body," it doesn't really mean "Spiritual body."); rather, it means that the physical, material, flesh-and-bone body that will be resurrected and made immortal and imperishable will no longer be dominated by the flesh (i.e., the sinful nature) but by the Spirit. (Oh, I get it. Instead of using Dake's method of understanding the Bible literally, we should use the authors' method of spiritualizing the Biblical text to align with our preconceived ideas of what we think the Bible ought to say. Yeah. Right.)

 

Dake also argues that since humans were created in God's image and have bodies, God must have a body as well: ÒIf man was made in the image and likeness of God bodily, then God must have a body, and an outward form and shape.Ó23 Mormons make the same argument. It is false, however, to assume that because we are like God, God must be like us (Here, Dake is simply quoting the Bible. The Bible says that we are made in the image of God as we see in Gen. 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." The word "image" here is the Hebrew word "tselem". It is used 16 times in the Old Testament and refers to similarity of physical appearance. Here is one example: Gen. 5:3 "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth." It doesn't get much clearer than that.)  Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes explain, ÒJust because all horses have four legs does not mean that all four-legged things are horses. And just because God made male and female does not mean he is male and female. ÔGod is Spirit' (John 4:24), yet he made people with bodies (Gen. 2:7). Just because we have a physical body does not mean that God has one too.Ó24 (I respect Norman Geisler, but I'll stick with what the Bible says, thank you very much).

 

Dake asserts that the Bible plainly speaks of God as having a face, hands, eyes, arms, legs, and other body parts just like any other person.25 He recognizes that the Bible sometimes uses language that obviously is figurative, such as when it says Jesus is Òthe doorÓ (John 10:7); however, based on his rule to Òtake the Bible literally where at all possible,Ó he contends that the passages that attribute human body parts to God should be interpreted literally. In other words, he believes it is possible for God to have a body, and therefore interprets these passages literally.

(This would be a problem if the Bible only spoke of God's physical attributes in a figurative or metaphorical sense. However, there are many, many instances of God appearing in a physical form to both men and women. Here is a list compiled by Dake:

 

Forty-four Appearances of God

 

1. Forming man and animals out of the dust and Eve out of Adam's rib indicates the visible presence of God in the days of re-creation (Gen. 2:7, 19-25). According to Gen. 2:21 the Lord God Òtook one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof,Ó which would surely require His presence with Adam at that time.

 

2. Adam and Eve saw God in visible form after they had sinned, and hid themselves from Him Òamongst the trees of the gardenÓ because Òthey heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the gardenÓ (Gen. 3:8-19). They couldn't hide from God in His invisible presence, because it is everywhere.

 

3. Cain saw God in visible form, because he could not have been driven out of His invisible presence which is with everyone everywhere (Gen. 4:6, 9, 16).

 

4. It is clear from Gen. 11:5 that God appeared on earth at the time of the tower of Babel, for it says, Òthe Lord came down to see the city and the tower.Ó

 

5. Abraham was blessed with several appearances of God. The first recorded appearance is in Gen. 12:7 which says, Òthe Lord appeared unto Abram.Ó

 

6. In Gen. 17:1-22 Òthe Lord appeared to Abram ... and God went up from Abraham.Ó

 

7. In Gen. 18:1 Òthe Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre.Ó Verse 2 says Abraham saw three men standing by him. These proved to be the Lord and two angels (Gen. 18:22; 19:1). Other statements in Genesis 18 prove a visible appearance: ÒLet a little water be fetched ... and wash your feetÓ (Gen. 18:4); Òhe took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them ... and they did eatÓ (Gen. 18:8); Òthe men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the wayÓ (Gen. 18:16); Òthe Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great ... I will go down now, and seeÓ (Gen. 18:20-21); ÒAbraham stood yet before the Lord. And Abraham drew near, and saidÓ (Gen. 18:22-23); ÒAnd the Lord went His way ... and Abraham returned unto his placeÓ (Gen. 18:33)

 

8. God appeared to Isaac and confirmed the Abrahamic covenant with him, as is clear from Gen. 26:2-4. Gen. 18:2 states, Òthe Lord appeared unto him.Ó

 

9. He appeared again to Isaac, reminding him of the covenant (Gen. 26:24).

 

10. He appeared to Jacob and confirmed the Abrahamic covenant with him (Gen. 28:12-15 with Gen. 35:1).

 

11. God wrestled with Jacob bodily in Gen. 32:24-32. That this was a bodily appearance of God is proven in Gen. 32:30: ÒI have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.Ó

 

12. Jacob experienced another visible visitation of God in Gen. 35:9-15, ÒAnd God appeared unto Jacob again.Ó

 

13. The Lord appeared to Moses Òin a flame of fire out of the midst of a bushÓ (Ex. 3:1-4; Acts 7:30-34). This is one of many instances where Òthe angel of the LordÓ is used for God Himself. Whereas Ex. 3:2 says Òthe angel,Ó Ex. 3:4 says Òthe Lord saw ... God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.Ó See The Spirit World.

 

14. The Lord Òcame down upon Mount Sinai,Ó to give the Ten Commandments Òin the sight of all the peopleÓ (Ex. 19:11-24; Dt. 5:4, 22-29).

 

15. Seventy-four leaders of Israel (including Moses and Aaron) saw God and ate with Him on Sinai (Ex. 24:1-11).

 

16. Moses saw God again on Sinai face to face (Ex. 24:12-18).

 

17. In Ex. 33:9-11 God talked with Moses as he entered the tabernacle: Òthe Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.Ó Even the heathen had knowledge of God being seen face to face (Num. 14:14).

 

18. In Ex. 33:12-23 Moses asked to see God's glory (Ex. 33:18), instead of His bodily form apart from His glory which he had already seen many times. God refused to show him the glory of His face but said Moses might see it in ÒMy back partsÓ (Ex. 33:23).

 

19. Moses saw God another time in Ex. 34:5-9 when Òthe Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there.Ó

 

20. God appeared to Moses and all Israel Lev. 9:23-24 which says, Òthere came a fire out from before (not down from) the Lord, and consumed upon the altar.Ó This indicates a visible presence.

 

21. Lev. 10:1-2 states that Òthere went out fire from the LordÓ to devour wicked priests who Òoffered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.Ó

 

22. According to Num. 12:4-5, Òthe Lord came down ... and stood in the door of the tabernacleÓ to be seen and heard by Moses, Miriam and Aaron.

 

23. In Dt. 31:2, 15-16, at the time of Moses' death, when he was 120 years old (Dt. 34:5-7), the Lord appeared to him.

 

24. ÒGod came unto Balaam at nightÓ to instruct him and warn him (Num. 22:20).

 

25. ÒThe ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way ... His sword drawn (Num. 22:23).

 

26. Again Òthe ass saw the angel of the LordÓ standing Òin a path of the vineyardsÓ (Num. 22:24-25).

 

27. Still again the ass saw Òthe angel of the LordÓ who Òwent further, and stood in a narrow placeÓ (Num. 22:26-27).

 

28. When Òthe Lord opened the eyes of Balaam ... he saw the angel of the LordÓ (Num. 22:31-38). That this was an appearance of God is evident from the fact that in Num. 22:35 it says, Òthe angel of the Lord said unto Balaam ... only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speakÓ; and in Num. 22:38 it says, ÒBalaam said ... the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.Ó

 

29. In Num. 23:3-10 ÒGod met BalaamÓ and gave him words to speak.

 

30. Again, as recorded in Num. 23:16-24, Òthe Lord met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth.Ó

 

31. Joshua saw God in a visible body, having a Òsword drawn in His handÓ (Josh. 5:13-15). That He received worship when ÒJoshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship,Ó proves the visible presence was God. See Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9 where worship was refused.

 

32. God appeared to Israel to rebuke them for sin (Judg. 2:1-5).

 

33. The Lord appeared to Gideon and Òsat under an oakÓ in visible form as recorded in Judg. 6:11-23. While in v. 11 He is called Òan angel of the Lord,Ó in vv. 14 and 16 He is plainly called Òthe Lord.Ó

 

34. He appeared to Manoah's wife and predicted Samson's birth (Judg. 13:3-7).

 

35. He appeared to Manoah and his wife together in answer to prayer, as seen in Judg. 13:8-23. That this was an appearance of God in visible form is clear from Judg. 13:22 which says, ÒManoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.Ó

 

36. God appeared to Samuel and called him to be a prophet, as seen in 1 Sam. 3:10 which says, Òthe Lord came, and stood, and called.Ó

 

37. He appeared again to Samuel, for 1 Sam. 3:21 says, ÒAnd the Lord appeared again in ShilohÓ

 

38. In 1 Ki. 19:11-18 we see that Elijah saw the Lord when he stood Òupon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by.Ó

 

39. From 1 Chr. 21:16-17 we learn that David saw the Lord, for whereas 1 Chr. 21:16 says David Òsaw the angel of the Lord,Ó 1 Chr. 21:17 calls Him ÒGod.Ó Referring to the place of this appearance, 2 Chr. 3:1 says, Òwhere the Lord appeared unto David.Ó

 

40. God appeared to Job who said, ÒI have heard of Thee ... but now mine eye seeth TheeÓ (Job 42:5).

 

41. God appeared to Isaiah in the temple, for in Isa. 6 he testified, ÒI saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple.Ó

 

42. Amos declared in Amos 9:1, ÒI saw the Lord standing upon the altar.Ó

 

43. Acts 7:54-60 shows that Stephen saw ÒJesus standing on the right hand of God.Ó

 

44. John saw both God and the glorified Christ in the reception of Revelation (Rev. 4:2-11; 5:1-13; 6:16; 7:9-17; 8:3-5; 11:16; 12:5; 14:1-5; 19:1-10; 21:3-7; 22:1-5). In Rev. 1:10-18 we read of an appearance of Christ, for in Rev. 1:11 John speaks of a voice saying, ÒI am Alpha and Omega,Ó and in Rev. 1:12-13 he says, ÒI turned to see the voice that spake ... I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst ... one like unto the Son of man.Ó

 

Besides the above appearances the prophets saw God — His shape, His body (like that of a man), His hair, eyes, and other bodily parts, His clothing, and His chariot throne drawn by cherubim in visions. Ezekiel saw Him (Ezek. 1:2-28; 8:1-4; 9:1-4; 10:1-5, 7-22; 40:1-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 17, 19, 24, 28, 32, 35, 45, 47-48; 41:1, 4-5, 13, 15; 42:1, 13, 15-20; 43:1-7); Daniel saw Him (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-9); and Zechariah saw Him (Zech. 1:8-20; 2:1-13; 3:1-2; 4:1-5; 5:2-5, 10; 6:4-5). We have reasons to believe that Enoch, Noah and others also saw God, because they walked with Him and received specific instructions from Him (Gen. 5:22-24; 6:8-9; Heb. 11:5-7; Jude 1:14-15). Furthermore, on a number of occasions the glory of the Lord appeared to Moses and Israel and they saw it and heard God's voice from it. This was more than an invisible presence (Num. 14:10-12; 16:19-30, 41-50; 20:6-13, etc.). In view of the above appearances of God to men, the often quoted verse, ÒNo man hath seen God at any timeÓ (Jn. 1:18) can only be understood to mean that no man has seen Him face to face in His glory and comprehended Him fully as Òthe only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,Ó who Òhath declared him.Ó In 1 Tim. 6:16 we read of the Godhead Òdwelling in the light which no man can approach unto,Ó but when God chooses to appear apart from this light, man can approach. Human beings have experienced this many times, both seeing and hearing God.

 

 

There is a problem with this simplistic approach: whether it is possible for God to have a body is a philosophical question that must be answered before interpreting passages that speak of God's body parts. (Okay, wait just a minute. Do you see what the authors are doing here? They are literally placing their philosophical assumptions ABOVE the clear reading and authority of the Scripture itself. What they are saying here is that we must FIRST decide on our philosophy of God, and THEN interpret the Bible based on our philosophical assumptions.)  It is similar to the question of whether God can lie: whether it is possible for God to lie (He cannot because of His nature) is a question that must be answered before interpreting the biblical statement, ÒGod cannot lie.Ó It cannot be answered based on the biblical statement alone (No, but it CAN be answered based on the many passages of Scripture which say the same thing), because it is logically possible that God lied in that statement.

 

Many philosophical arguments prove that God cannot have a body; for example, if God has a body that is composed of parts, then He must have been composed (i.e., created, assembled) by another being greater than Himself, for He could not have composed Himself (This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. What are the authors thinking here? That God is made of Lego's?). In other words, if God has a body, He is not really God (This is what happens when you place philosophy above the authority of Scripture). Another argument is that bodies exist in space and time; but God created space and time; therefore, He must exist apart from space and time. God, therefore, cannot have a body. (Only PHYSICAL bodies exist in space and time. Spiritual bodies can exist in any way God sees fit for them to exist).

 

The point of these arguments is that it is logically impossible for God to have a body because of His nature (i.e., what God is) (The authors haven't even come close to proving this statement). A body is limited, temporal, changing, visible, material, composed of parts, and present in only one location at a time, whereas God is unlimited, eternal, unchanging, invisible, immaterial, not composed of parts, and always present everywhere; therefore, God cannot have a body. (All these things apply ONLY to a PHYSICAL body. Dake never said that God had a physical body) (This doesn't mean that one of the persons of the Trinity could not take on, or add, a human nature that includes a material body, as is the case with Jesus who now has two natures: divine and human.)

 

If it is logically impossible for God to have a body (it's not), then those passages that speak of God's body parts cannot be interpreted literally (Again, do you see what happens when you place the philosophies of man above the inspired Scripture? You end up interpreting the Bible according to preconceived ideas, instead of taking God's Word at face value); they must be interpreted figuratively. When biblical authors attribute human characteristics to God, they are using a figure of speech called anthropomorphism. This means that they are referring to God in terms of human body parts or passions. Speaking figuratively of God's hands, eyes, anger, or even love, helps finite humans comprehend truths about an infinite God and the way He acts. (So, when God says that He spoke with Moses "face to face" in Exodus 33:11, or when Jacob says in Gen. 32:30 that   he had seen God "face to face," God really didn't mean it.) Theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer comments, ÒWhere physical members are thus ascribed to God, it is not a direct assertion that God possesses these members, or a corporal [physical] body with its parts; but that He is capable of doing precisely those things which are the functions of the physical part of man.Ó26 (Dake believed that God, being who He is, was perfectly capable of communicating His attributes through His inspired Word.)

 

If all the characteristics that are ascribed to God in the Bible were taken literally, (Dake NEVER did this. No one with any common sense would either) one would end up with an absurd view of God as having wings and feathers (Ps. 17:8), being made of stone (Ps. 18:31), or having eyes that literally Òrun to and fro throughout the whole earthÓ (2 Chron. 16:9 KJV). Dake recognizes that ascribing literal birdlike or rocklike characteristics to God results in absurd conclusions; however, he does not recognize that ascribing literal humanlike characteristics to God results in absurd conclusions as well. By taking anthropomorphic passages literally, Dake has denied the historic Christian doctrine of God (Absolutely not true. Dake aligns with the historic doctrine of God which says that God is a Spirit. Dake believed God is a Spirit, with a Spiritual body). He, instead, has Òexchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible manÓ (Rom. 1:23 NASB). (NOW who's taking Scripture out of context?)

 

THE TRINITY

 

Dake defines the Trinity as Òthe union of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one (unified) Godhead or divinity, so that all three persons are one in unity and eternal substance, but three separate and distinct persons as to individuality.Ó27 This statement is similar to historic Christian definitions of the Trinity, such as in the ancient creeds, but Dake's view of the Trinity clearly is not the same as the historic Christian view.

 

(This is an important point to emphasize. Dake's view of the Trinity falls in line with the traditional evangelical understanding of the Trinity. A more detailed analysis is provided by Rev. Leon Bible:

 

            Take note that Dake's definition of the trinity includes all the elements of the classical definition of the trinity. In fact the similarity between Dake's and Wesley's definitions are striking to say the least. No doubt Dake gleaned his definition from Wesley.

 

The Moody Handbook Of Theology

 

            For a more detailed look at this definition let us consult another classic work on Theology: ÒThe Moody Handbook of TheologyÓ which points out what must be the basic elements of a Biblical definition of the trinity. The Moody Handbook points out the following:

           

            1. God is one in regard to essence.

            2. God is three with respect to Persons.

            3. The three Persons have distinct relationships.

            4. The three Persons are equal in authority.

 

Here again we can easily see that Dake's definition of the trinity has all four of these basic requirements for a Biblical definition of the trinity. In fact let us look at Moody's definition point by point for comparison. And let's bring in a few other pages from Dake's works to bring an even greater understanding of Dake's view.

 

Moody

Dake

1. God is one in regard to essence.

Éall three persons are one in unity and eternal substanceÉ

 

2. God is three with respect to Persons.

Éthe union of three personsÉ

 

3. The three Persons have distinct relationships.

Éthe Father, the Son, and the Holy SpiritÉ Éthree separate and distinct persons as to individualityÉ

 

4. The three Persons are equal in authority.

Éequality with God in Divinity is definitely statedÉ

 

 

Without doubt Dake's view of the trinity is compatible with the orthodox view as stated in Moody. There can be no argument here.)

 

The historic Christian view of the Trinity — that God is one being constituted by three persons — is Òfoolish and unscriptural, to say the least,Ó says Dake.28 He states, it is a fallacy Òthat there is only one person or one being called God.Ó29 Dake says that the Trinity is three separate and distinct persons in one God; however, he defines person as Òa rational being with bodily presence, soul passions, and spirit faculties.Ó30 In his view, person and being mean the same thing. He concludes, therefore, that the Trinity is three separate and distinct beings, each with a body, soul, and spirit: ÒWhat we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the sense that each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul and spirit.Ó31

 

This characterization of the Trinity as three separate beings is different than the historic Christian view that the Trinity is three separate persons who are united in one essence or substance — in other words, one being. (Here the authors are simply playing word games. Dake says the Trinity is one in "unity and eternal substance". The Trinity is one in every important way three can be one. For example, when Jesus was baptized by John, we see the Spirit descending like a dove, and the voice of God sounding from Heaven saying "This is my beloved Son." Was Jesus a ventriloquist, or was God really speaking?) When Dake says Òall three persons are one in unity and eternal substance,Ó he means three separate beings who are one in unity or purpose. It is true that all three persons in the Trinity are one in purpose, but the historic Christian view is that Òone in substanceÓ means one in being (essence or nature). In other words, the Trinity is three persons (three whos) who are one being (one what). (This is an inadequate understanding of the traditional evangelical doctrine of the Trinity. Based on the authors' understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, you would have a God with multiple personalities. Their God, in essence, has a psychological disorder).

 

The Athanasian Creed (c. AD 361) was written partly to defend the orthodox understanding of the Trinity against an error known as tritheism, which says that the Trinity is three separate Gods. It states, ÒWe worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.Ó32 Trinitarians have historically understood substance here to mean essence or being, not purpose as Dake argues. (God is one being just as man is one being, though composed of body, soul and spirit, as is seen from this item in Dake's note, "89 Proofs of a Divine Trinity": "Is God only one being made up of several persons or beings in the one being?  If so, we can conclude that man is one person or being made up of many.")

 

Trinitarians, moreover, have not understood being to mean the same thing as person, as Dake argues, otherwise the Trinity would be three infinite, perfect beings. (Again, Dake explains the Trinity as being comprised of "three persons [who] are one in unity and eternal SUBSTANCE"),Theologian Henry Thiessen points out, ÒThere can be only one infinite and perfect being. To postulate two or more infinite beings is illogical and inconceivable.Ó33 One reason there cannot be two or more infinite, perfect beings is because they would have to differ from each other in some way, and to differ means each being must lack something that the others have; however, if they lack something, they are not infinite, perfect beings; therefore, there can be only one infinite, perfect being.

 

Many of Dake's statements regarding the Trinity are similar to classic Trinitarian statements, but his view is not the same as the historic Christian view; if it were the same, he certainly would not have called the historic Christian view foolish and unscriptural. (It is not the doctrine that is foolish, it is the inaccurate INTERPRETATION of the doctrine that Dake considered foolish).

 

JESUS CHRIST

 

Dake's misunderstanding of God's nature also results in a problematic view of Jesus' nature. He teaches, for example, that Jesus became the Son of God at His incarnation34 (a view held by Jehovah's Witnesses known as adoptionism) and that Jesus became the Messiah at His baptism35 (see, however, Luke 2:11 and Matt. 2:4). These views have been rejected by the majority of the church throughout history. His most troubling views, however, relate to Jesus' incarnation and resurrection. (This is simply not so.  Dake does not teach that Jesus became the Messiah at His baptism! This is not found in the Dake writings or his teachings.)

 

Dake argues, as noted above, that before the Incarnation, the Son (Jesus) had a spirit body as did the Father and the Spirit; however, he says that when Jesus came to earth, He exchanged His spirit body for a human body: ÒHe laid aside His God body to take a human body, His immortality in body to become mortal.Ó36 Jesus' resurrection, in Dake's view, was a return to a spiritual body, the same kind of body that believers will receive at their resurrection. Dake claimed, ÒEven resurrected bodies of flesh-and-bone saints are called Ôspiritual' (1 Cor. 15:44), so spiritual bodies are of materialized, spiritualized substance — something we know nothing about, as far as experience is concerned, at the present time.Ó37 This type of spiritualized body, he argues, enabled Jesus (as it will us) to go through doors (John 20:26), appear and disappear at will (Luke 24:31), and change form (Mark 16:12).

 

There are several reasons to reject Dake's view that man's resurrected body will not be physical (i.e., material) (This reflects a HUGE misunderstanding on the part of the authors regarding the distinction between Dake's understanding of physical and spiritual bodies. Dake NEVER said a spiritual body was not material in substance. In fact, he continually argued AGAINST this idea). First, Scripture teaches that Jesus' resurrected body was the same physical body that went into the grave. Jesus declared to the Jews, for example, ÒDestroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it upÓ (John 2:19 NASB, emphasis added). John explained, ÒHe was speaking of the temple of His bodyÓ (v. 21). In other words, the body that came out of the grave was the same one that went in. (Except for some minor modifications... such as His ability to walk through walls and appear instantly in different places. In other words, it was a glorified version of His earthly body, exactly as Dake stated).

 

Second, according to Peter, David foresaw that Jesus' body would not see decay in the grave (Acts 2:30–31; cf. Ps. 16:10). There would be no reason for God to preserve Jesus' physical body if it was going to be exchanged for a different, spiritual body. (Jesus' body didn't see decay, because His physical body was exchanged for a glorified, spiritual, "real" body... just like the bodies all Christians will have for eternity).

 

Third, many of Jesus' postresurrection appearances in the Gospels emphasize the physical nature of His resurrected body: it had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39); it had the crucifixion wounds (John 20:27); it ate food (Luke 24:41–43), and it was physically recognized and touched by humans (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:17, 27).38 The Gospels attest that Jesus' body that arose and appeared to the disciples and other witnesses was the same physical body that was crucified.39

 

Dake recognizes the strong biblical support that Jesus' resurrected body was (and is) physical flesh and bone. He vigorously argues, however, based on his view of the Òspiritual bodyÓ in 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus' body was Òmaterialized, spiritualized substance.Ó A Òmaterialized, spiritualized substance,Ó however, is a contradiction in terms; moreover, the phrase Òspirit body,Ó as defined by Dake, is the same as saying Òimmaterial material,Ó which also is a contradiction in terms. A thing is either material or immaterial — there is no middle ground. (Here is the main problem with the authors' understanding of Jesus' resurrected body, as well as their understanding of the Trinity, as we have seen. Jesus' "spiritual" body was, and is, a "real" body with "real" bodily functions. It was different than his earthly, "physical" body only in the sense that it was now a glorified body, the kind that all Christians will have for eternity.)

 

JESUS' NATURE WHILE ON EARTH

 

Paul says that Jesus Òemptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servantÉbeing made in the likeness of menÓ (Phil. 2:7 NASB). This is known as the kenosis passage, which comes from a Greek verb that means Òto empty.Ó The question is, what does Òemptied himselfÓ mean, and of what did Jesus empty himself while on earth?

 

Rhodes explains, ÒPaul's statementÉinvolves three basic issues: the veiling of [Christ's] preincarnate glory, a voluntary nonuse of some of his divine attributes, and the condescension involved in taking on the likeness of men.Ó40 Jesus Òemptied himselfÓ by voluntarily limiting the use of some of His divine attributes while on earth, but at no time did He cease to possess them. (This is just a play on words again. As this passage explains, Jesus "emptied Himself" of all the rights and privileges that were rightfully His as God. Dake believed, as do all evangelicals, that Jesus was fully God and fully man. He emptied Himself of the rights and privileges of God, but that NEVER meant He wasn't still fully God in every way).

 

Dake argues, however, that Jesus did not possess His divine attributes while on earth. He explains, ÒThe limitations of Christ in knowledge and wisdom cannot be explained and harmonized with the fact that Christ had omniscience [unlimited knowledge]. His limitations in power and His powerlessness to act and do things in Himself cannot be harmonized with the fact that He had his original attribute of omnipotence [unlimited power]É. Christ's emptying Himself in reality includes the laying aside of His attributes and powers or at least limitations of them in becoming man.Ó41 Dake says that Jesus Òcould not have retained immutability.Ó42 Finally, Dake states that Jesus became unequal with God: ÒIf He had not laid aside His equality as God, then He could not have been unequal with God as manifested in the days of his flesh.Ó43

 

There are a number of problems with Dake's view. First, the fact that Jesus did not know or do something does not mean that He could not know or do it. A person can choose not to open a door to see who is knocking, but that does not mean that person lacks the power to do so. In several statements, Dake seems to leave room for the view that Jesus merely chose not to use His divine attributes; but this view requires that Jesus possessed His divine attributes, which is inconsistent with Dake's many arguments that He did not possess them.

 

Second, without His divine attributes, Jesus cannot be God. (Wrong, wrong, wrong. If the President of the United States lays aside his right to use Air Force One, instead opting to take Delta flights wherever he travels, he is still the President of the United States.) This is because God is a perfectly simple being, that is, He is not composed of parts, which means His attributes and His nature are one and the same. God doesn't just have the attribute of omnipotence, for example, He is omnipotence. (This is another great example of the authors allowing their philosophies to interfere with their understanding of clear portions of Scripture). In other words, God minus even one of His attributes is not God. (How great is a God that can't even choose to lay aside one of His attributes for a specific purpose?) God's nature, moreover, is immutable (unchangeable), which means He cannot change and become different than He is; for example, God cannot change from being unlimited in power to being limited in power. It is also illogical to say, as Dake does, that Jesus changed from being immutable (unchangeable) to being mutable (changeable). (After all this, we still refer to Phil. 2:7 where the Bible CLEARLY states that Jesus DID empty Himself. A correct understanding of this passage is VERY important. Jesus emptied Himself of all the rights and privileges that were rightfully His as God. That means that when He lived his life on earth, He couldn't call on His "divine powers" to help Him out of a jam. When the Bible tells us that Jesus was tempted just as we are, yet without sin, it really means something if we know that Jesus didn't have any supernatural powers to rely on. But wait, there's more. Jesus DID have a supernatural power to rely on... the power of the Holy Spirit that is available to all Christians. When Jesus healed people or raised Lazarus from the dead, He wasn't relying on His divine nature, but on the power of the Holy Spirit that is available to all believers. When Jesus promised that it was actually better for us if He returned to Heaven, promising to send the Holy Spirit, He wasn't kidding).

 

Finally, to say that Jesus laid aside ÒHis equality as GodÓ goes against Jesus' claims to be (equal with) God and instead agrees with the Pharisees who said that Jesus, being a man, was falsely making Himself to be God (John 10:30–33).

 

In the incarnation (when Christ ÒbecameÓ human), Christ's nature did not change from divine to human (Dake never said it did. Dake always saw Jesus as fully divine and fully human); rather, the second person of the Trinity took on a human nature in addition to His divine nature. Jesus Christ, the God-Man, possesses two separate and distinct natures in His one person. This doctrine was spelled out at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). The incarnation, therefore, did not require Jesus to give up His divine nature or attributes (The authors, for some reason, insist on believing that Jesus couldn't give up His divine attributes. God can't give up His nature, and He didn't. He CAN choose to give up His rights and privileges, and that's exactly what He did). Any limitations He had can be ascribed either to His human nature (e.g., His physical body could not be present everywhere at once) or to His choice not to exercise certain attributes of His divine nature, which He fully possessed even while on earth.

 

Dake's view that Jesus retained His divine nature, but gave up the very attributes that make that nature divine is contradictory. It reveals a misunderstanding of the divine nature and compromises the very divinity of Jesus, in which he claims to believe. (As we have seen, this is not what Dake believed).

 

SALVATION AND WORKS

 

Dake's view of salvation is another problematic area. On one hand, he states that salvation is by grace and not by works: ÒEternal life is a free giftÉ.Men merit hell, but not eternal life. Jesus Christ alone procured it and gives it freely to all who believe.Ó44 He also says it is by faith alone and not works: ÒThe law of works cannot pardonÉ.Faith alone in Christ will pardon and cancel the death penalty.Ó45

 

On the other hand, he flatly denies that grace alone is sufficient for salvation: ÒIt is true that grace cannot beÉmixed with the law of works, but this does not prove that there are no conditions men must meet in order to get the benefits of grace. Not one scripture teaches unconditional grace.Ó46 Dake asserts, ÒGrace cannot excuse and ignore the failure of saved man to meet the many conditions of salvation.Ó47 He lists, for example, Òtwo things [that are] necessary for one to be saved from all sin and only two,Ó48 Ò3 things men must do and continue in to receive eternal life,Ó49 Ò7 conditions of eternal salvation,Ó50 and Ò23 conditions of eternal life.Ó51 In one comment, he says, ÒThere are 1,050 commands in the N.T. for the Christian to obeyÉ.If obeyed, they will bring rich rewards here and forever; if disobeyed they will bring condemnation and eternal punishment.Ó52

 

In Dake's view, grace can set aside condemnation only if one remains free from sin. In a section listing Ò30 things grace cannot do,Ó he asserts, ÒThe modern fallacy that judicial forgiveness covers ALL sins, past, present, and future; that God does not impute sins of believers to them; and that God never condemns a saved man for any sins committed, but charges them to the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most unscriptural and demon-inspired theories in any church.Ó53

 

According to Dake, justification, the initial act of God by which He declares a believing sinner righteous, is maintained by obeying certain conditions and by not sinning: Òevery act of obedience is an act of faith and works combined to maintain justification before God.Ó54 He states elsewhere that a believer who sins can lose his salvation and again be condemned: ÒA man forgiven of past sins must quit sin. If he commits the same sins again after conversion he will be charged with them again. They must be properly confessed and forgiven again or he will pay the death penalty for the new crimes.Ó55

 

Dake fails to clearly and consistently teach that salvation (justification) is by grace alone through faith alone apart from works — two of the central doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. He states that salvation is by grace through faith, but he also teaches that obedience and confession of sin are necessary to receive and maintain justification. This is a confused gospel of grace plus works. Scripture, however, teaches that the only condition a person must meet to receive and keep eternal life (salvation) is to Òbelieve on the Lord Jesus ChristÓ (Acts 16:31; cf. John 3:18; 20:31; Eph. 2:8). It also teaches that a believer does not lose eternal life and fall back into condemnation when he or she sins (John 3:18; 5:24; Rom. 8:1–4, 33–39). (This is a distinction made between Calvinism and Arminianism. This is NOT an issue related to evangelical protestantism, but between two different understandings of how salvation works. To put is simply, the authors believe that once you are saved, you can live your life any way you choose. Given the authors' understanding of salvation, Hitler could have been saved and then committed the atrocities of the Holocaust and still gone to heaven. The Arminian view is that salvation is a free gift, but can be rejected by continual, willful sin).

 

GUARANTEED HEALTH

 

Dake's literal interpretation of passages such as Isaiah 53:5, John 14:14, and 3 John 2 results in the view that Jesus bore our sickness as well as our sin in the atonement; therefore, physical healing can be appropriated now by faith the same as forgiveness. He states,

 

ÒEveryone can get healed now — right now by faith — as much as he can be forgiven of sins now. The reason all are not healed is because they do not believe this truth and accept it as they do forgiveness of sins.ÉBoth forgiveness and healing were atoned for on the cross, but they are appropriated individually by faith when one meets the necessary conditions of repentance and faith in the atonement. All Hell cannot rob him of either blessing if one refuses to permit demon forces to defeat him.Ó56

 

The problem with equating physical sickness with sin in the atonement is that if a person does not have enough faith to be healed, then that person has no assurance that he or she has enough faith to be saved. Hank Hanegraaff points out, ÒIf both healing and salvation are included in [the atonement], they must be accessed in the same way. And if one does not have enough faith to make oneself well, it follows that he cannot have enough faith to be saved. Therefore those who die physically due to lack of faith must also wind up in hell for the same reason.Ó57

(A brief look at Dake's statement above should be enough to clarify this point. Dake states that while "both forgiveness and healing were atoned for on the cross, they are appropriated individually." When John's disciples asked Jesus if He were really the Messiah, Jesus responded by pointing to the signs of the Kingdom that were following His ministry. Healing was a prominent feature of the spread of God's Kingdom then, and it is now)

 

In Dake's view, the failure to be healed reflects willful unbelief and disobedience to the laws of God and nature.58 He even calls sickness sin: ÒIt becomes sinful to bear in our bodies those things that Christ has already borne for us.Ó59 This view is not only unbiblical, (This view is VERY Biblical, it is just not very pleasant) it adds guilt to a person who is already suffering from an illness or disease. One wonders if Dake believed that his own inability to be healed from Parkinson's disease, which eventually took his life, was a sin due to unbelief. (Dake called it like he saw it. If the Bible said it was so, then he believe it. Note that the authors never provide Scriptural support for their view. They prefer to quote Hank Hanegraaff rather than the Bible. On the other hand, Dake always gave a great deal of support for his views. Here are the contents of just one of his notes on healing:

 

1. Health was natural and eternal before the fall (Gen. 1:26-31; 2:17). 2. Both death and sickness originated with sin and are now being propagated by Satan (Rom. 5:12-21; Job. 2:6-7; Lk. 13:16; Jn. 10:10; Acts 10:  38; 1 Jn. 3:8). 3. The first prophecy and promise of redemption included healing (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 53:5; Mt. 8:16-17; 1 Pet. 2:24). 4. The first recorded bodily affliction came through wrongdoing (Gen. 20:1-18). 5. The first recorded healing was by the prayer of a prophet (Gen. 20:7-17). 6. God made covenants with His people to heal them (Ex. 15:26; 23:23; Lev. 26; Dt. 28; Mt. 8:17; 1 Pet. 2:24; Jas. 5:14). 7. God has always kept His covenants and has healed multitudes by spiritual means (Ps. 103:3; 105:37; 107:20; Acts 10:38). 8. Spiritual means to heal is all that God promised and commanded (Ex. 15:25; Ps. 91; Isa. 58; Mt. 8:17; 13:15; Jas. 5:14-16; 1 Pet. 2:24). 9. Spiritual means were used in the wilderness by Israel (Ex. 15:26; Num. 11:1-3; 12:13-16; 21:1-9; Jn. 3:14). 10. Healing was promised on condition of obedience (Lev. 26; Dt. 28; Ex. 15:26; Ps. 91; Isa. 58; Jas. 5:14-15). 11. God permits Satan to afflict sinners and even His own people when they go astray, to bring them to repentance (Job 33:12-30; Ps. 38; 103:3; Num. 12:13-16; 21:9; 1 Cor. 5:1-5; 2 Cor. 2:6-11; Gal. 6:7-8). 12. God always healed when lessons were learned and men repented (Gen. 20:7, 17; Num. 11:2; 12:13-16; 21:1-9; Job 33:12-30; 42:1-12; Ps. 103:3; Jas. 5:14-15). 13. Health as well as healing was promised when men met certain conditions (Ex. 15:26; Lev. 26; Dt. 28; Ps. 91; Pr. 3:1-8; 12:18; 13:3; 15:4; 18:8, 21; Isa. 58; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 3:10-11; 3 Jn. 1:2). 14. Christ came to redeem from both sin and sickness (Isa. 53; 61:1-2; Mt. 8:17; 9:5; Gal. 3:13; Rom. 8:11; Acts 10:38; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 Jn. 3:8). 15. Healing is in fulfillment of prophecy (Isa. 35; 53; 61:1-2; Mt. 8:17; Acts 10:38; 1 Pet. 2:24; Mt. 13:15). 16. Jesus proved His Sonship by healing all men (Mt. 4:23-24; 11:3-6; Lk. 4:16-21; Acts 10:38; 1 Jn. 3:8). 17. Every disciple called and sent by Christ was given power to heal (Mt. 10:1-8; Mk. 6:7-13; Lk. 10:1-21; Acts 1:8). 18. Jesus commanded His disciples to become filled with power to heal before they went out (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4-8). 19. All disciples throughout this age are commanded to observe the same commands Christ gave the first disciples (Mt. 28:20; Acts 1:4-8; Mk. 16:15-20). 20. Early disciples did confirm the Word by healing (Mk. 16:15-20; Acts 2:43; 3:1-12; 5:2-16; 6:8; 8:7-13; 11:19-22; 14:3, 27; 15:4, 12; 19:11-12; 28:9; Rom. 15:18-19, 29; 1 Cor. 16:10; Phil. 1:7; 1Th. 2:13; Heb. 2:3-4). 21. The Holy Spirit was sent into the world to carry on the healing ministry (Acts 1:1-8; 2:33; 1 Cor. 12; Heb. 2:3-4). 22. Jesus promised every believer, not only ministers, power to do the works that He did (Mt. 17:20; 21:22; Mk. 9:23; 11:22-24; 16:15-20; Jn. 14:12-15; 15:7, 16; 16:23-26; Acts 1:4-8). 23. Gifts of healing and other gifts are promised as the spiritual equipment of the church (1 Cor. 1:7; 12:1-11; Rom. 1:11; 12:6-8; 15:18-19, 29; Heb. 2:3-4). 24. Healing is part of the work of the church (Mt. 10:1-8; Lk. 10:1-21; 24:49; Acts 1:1-8; 1 Cor. 12; Jas. 5:14-16). 25. Healing is provided as part of Christ's atonement (Isa. 53:4-5; Mt. 8:16-17; 13:14-15; Jn. 3:14; 10:10; Rom. 1:16; 8:11; 1 Cor. 11:23-32; Gal. 3:13; Jas. 5:14-16; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3 Jn. 1:2; cp. Ex. 15:26; Ps. 91; 103:3). 26. Healing is part of the children's bread and their promised right by virtue of redemption (Mt. 7:7-11; 15:22-28; 17:20; 21:22; Mk. 9:23; 11:22-24; Lk. 13:16; Jn. 3:14-16; 14:12-15; 15:7, 16; 16:23-26; 1 Jn. 3:8, 20-22; 5:14-15; 3 Jn. 1:2). 27. Healing is one of the signs of the gospel to follow believers (Mk. 16:15-20). 28. Healing was not only for the Old Testament days (Ex. 15:26; Ps. 91; 103:3) and for the Millennium (Isa. 30:26; 33:24; 35:1-10). It is also for this age, or the gospel is faulty and the new covenant worse than the old one (Mt. 8:17; 21:22; Mk. 9:23; 11:22-24; 16:15-20; Jn. 14:12-15; 15:7, 16; 2 Cor. 3:6-15; 1 Cor. 12:1-11; Heb. 2:3-4). 29. Healing proves that God's promises are true (2 Cor. 1:20; see above point). 30. Healing is part of salvation, for the Hebrew and Greek words for ÒsalvationÓ all imply the ideas of forgiveness, healing, health, and full deliverance from the curse (Rom. 1:16; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24). 31. Healing can naturally be expected as part of the infinite care of God over His children (Mt. 6:10; 7:7-11; 17:20; 21:22; Mk. 9:23; 11:22-24; Lk. 11:1-13; 18:1-18; Jn. 14:12-15; 15:7, 16; 16:23-26; Heb. 11:6; Jas. 1:4-8; 5:14-16). 32. Healing is on the same basis as forgiveness of sins — prayer and faith (Mt. 9:1-7; 13:15; 21:22; Acts 28:27; Jas. 1:4-8; 5:14-16; Heb. 11:6). 33. Healing proves the resurrection of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-8; 2:33; 3:16; 4:12; Rom. 8:11). 34. God has provided all necessary means of healing and complete defeat of satanic powers (2 Cor. 10:4-5; Eph. 6:10-18; Mk. 16:15-20; Jn. 14:12-15; Jas. 4:7; 5:14-16; 1 Pet. 2:24; 5:7-9). 35. Healing is always the will of God for His people who may:  Òask what ye willÓ (Jn. 15:7); ÒwhatsoeverÓ (Mt. 21:22; Jn. 14:12-15; 15:16); ÒanythingÓ (Jn. 14:14); Òwhat things soever ye desireÓ (Mk. 11:22-24); and Òmuch moreÓ than earthly parents would or could give their children (Mt. 7:7-11).

 

Thus, it is clear in Scripture that physical healing is provided for in the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament is based upon better promises than the Old Testament (Heb. 8:6).

 

Dake argues that to deny his view results in the absurd conclusion that God wants us to be sick: ÒShall we say that it is God's will for us to live in sickly and diseased bodies in preference to clean and healthy ones?60 This is a false dilemma. It is not the case that either God heals sickness now or He prefers sickness to health; there is a third option: God will defeat sickness and disease in the future. (NOTE: Jesus never taught this) Paul, in fact, stated that the whole world is waiting for the full and final redemption from the effects of the fall, which includes sickness and disease (Rom. 8:18–25). (Dake would agree with this)

 

Dake's recurring theme of guaranteed health by positive confession of faith is paralleled by his theme of guaranteed prosperity.61 These are standard doctrines among Word-Faith teachers and can devastate a person's health, finances, and faith if followed. (As we all know, there are those who are eager to distort God's Word for their own profit. This, however, does not change the reality of God's Word).

 

DANGER AHEAD

 

Dake's view of essential Christian doctrines sometimes has more in common with the theology of the cults than with historic Christian theology.  (As we have seen, this is completely false) His works, while containing many biblical truths, include numerous other unbiblical and outlandish teachings, such as: God lives in a mansion on a material planet called Heaven and is invisible to us only because He is so far away that we cannot see Him,62 (Dake taught that heaven is a real place. Many Bible scholars disagree) humans are miniatures of God in attributes and power,63 (Dake never believed that humans were "little God's" or anything of the sort. Dake was just explaining that God created man in His image. Here's the complete note: "The truth is that God has revealed Himself to be seen by the natural eyes of men repeatedly, and Biblical writers have given a clear record concerning what He is like.  The many personal descriptions of God's body and thousands of plain declarations regarding His soul passions and spirit attributes should not be denied or interpreted contrary to what is written; they should be believed in all simplicity.  The constant rejection of revealed facts about God certainly will not give us a true understanding of Him.  To acknowledge them as truth will not make God any less glorious, powerful, or great than He really is.  God can be like man in physical form and still be as magnificent as we have always thought Him to be.  He can have a spirit-substance body and still be like man in size and shape; and He can have passions, feelings, desires, intelligence and will-power without being confined to man's limitation and sinfulness.  Truly He is not only all that men, angels, and other beings are in this respect, but infinitely greater in everything; and man in reality is simply a miniature of God in attributes and powers."). Adam replaced Lucifer as ruler of the earth,64 disease germs are related to demons,65 (Interestingly, Dr. Ralph Winter, founder of the U.S. Center for World Mission and respected evangelical author and teacher, has written several papers dealing specifically with these same topics) several of these God wants the races to remain separate as they were originally and will be in eternity.66 (Please. Dake was saved in an African-American tent revival meeting and his son-in-law was a missionary to Africa). It is unfortunate that Dake's faulty works find such a welcome place in Christian churches and bookstores.

 

NOTES

 

1.        Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1988), s.v. ÒDake, Finis Jennings.Ó

 

2.        Finis J. Dake, ÒA True Story of a Magnificent Gift,Ó Dake Publishing, http://www.dake.com/true.html.

 

3.        Burgess and McGee.

 

4.        ÒRev. Dake to Preach until Term Starts,Ó Waukegan (Illinois) News-Sun, February 10, 1937, 1.

 

5.        Ibid.; see also Burgess and McGee.

 

6.        ÒZion Minister Fails to Post Mann Act Bail,Ó Chicago Daily Tribune, May 28, 1936, 17.

 

7.        ÒRev. Dake to Preach until Term Starts.Ó

 

8.        ÒFlock Absolves Petting Parson, but Jail Awaits,Ó Chicago Daily Tribune, February 10, 1937, 3. Some suggest that this commentary became the notes for The Dake Annotated Reference Bible.

 

9.        Burgess and McGee.

 

10.     Richard Love and Jennifer Bryon Owen, ÒThe Pentecostal Study Bible,Ó Charisma and Christian Life, January 1988, 39.

 

11.     Finis Jennings Dake, foreword to God's Plan for Man [hereafter GPFM] (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949).

 

12.     Finis Jennings Dake, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible [hereafter DARB] (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963).

 

13.     Burgess and McGee.

 

14.     Keel Germaine, ÒDake Bible Fills Niche,Ó CBA Marketplace, January 1997, 12.

 

15.     Love and Owen, 39.

 

16.     Jimmy Swaggart, ÒIn Memory: Finis Jennings Dake 1902–1987,Ó Evangelist, September 1987, 44.

 

17.     Larry Ollison, e-mail correspondence with author, July 25, 1997.

 

18.     David G. Roebuck, e-mail correspondence with author, July 23, 1997.

 

19.     GPFM, 37.

 

20.     Ibid., 47. See foreword to GPFM; preface to DARB.

 

21.     Ibid., 56.

 

22.     Ibid., 57.

 

23.     Ibid., 52.

 

24.     Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 23.

 

25.     GPFM, 56–57.

 

26.     Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 181–82.

 

27.     GPFM, 51

 

28.     Ibid., 53.

 

29.     DARB (New Testament), 280.

 

30.     GPFM, 50.

 

31.     DARB (New Testament), 280, emphasis added; GPFM, 65, 498.

 

32.     The Greek and Latin Creeds, vol. 2, The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., ed. Philip Schaff (1931; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 66.

 

33.     Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (1949; repr., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 89.

 

34.     DARB (New Testament), 57 n. d, 93 n. r.

 

35.     Ibid., 1 n. a; GPFM, 377.

 

36.     GPFM, 496.

 

37.     Ibid., 60.

 

38.     Norman L. Geisler, In Defense of the Resurrection (Clayton, CA: Witness, 1993), 122–29.

 

39.     William Lane Craig, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1981), 108.

 

40.     Ron Rhodes, Christ Before the Manger (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 195.

 

41.     GPFM, 387.

 

42.     Ibid., 398.

 

43.     Ibid.

 

44.     DARB (New Testament), 165 n. h.

 

45.     Ibid., 163 n. e.

 

46.     Ibid., 226, emphasis in original.

 

47.     GPFM, 343.

 

48.     Ibid., 433.

 

49.     DARB (New Testament), 107.

 

50.     Ibid., 67.

 

51.     Ibid., 100.

 

52.     Ibid., 313.

 

53.     GPFM, 342, emphasis in original; cf. 610. See also, ÒRedemption Fallacies Refuted,Ó DARB (Old Testament), 625–26.

 

54.     DARB (New Testament), 261 n. m.

 

55.     DARB (Old Testament), 625–26.

 

56.     GPFM, 946.

 

57.     Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 250.

 

58.     GPFM, 262.

 

59.     Ibid., 944–45.

 

60.     Ibid., 946.

 

61.     Ibid., 217–22.

 

62.     GPFM, 57–58.

 

63.     DARB (Old Testament), 548.

 

64.     GPFM, 118.

 

65.     Ibid., 241.

 

66.     Ò30 Reasons for Segregation of Races,Ó DARB (New Testament), 159. For Dake Publishing's account of their attempts to rectify a controversy with Frederick K. C. Price regarding this passage, see ÒAnswering the Charge of Racism,Ó Dake Publishing, http://www.dake.com/ position.html.