Cut to the Chase: Discerning “Experiencing God” by Blackaby & King - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------
"Why was 'Experiencing God' so damaging," Ms. Prata asks. Indeed, why? Specifically, what was damaged, and why is it so concerning? What is the great peril caused by this book? We hope Ms. Prata will answer. From the Bible.

Sadly, this will not happen. in a little over 900 words she quotes only one passage,  2 Timothy 3:16-17, and even that she misinterprets. 

She cites three things from Blackaby that are supposedly dangerous, even "damnable:"

• Normalizing hearing from God
• Believing we can see where God is working
• That we can come to know God through our own, self-interpreted experiences

What is the exact peril? We will never find out. Why does she sound the alarm? Unknown. What's the big danger? She never explains.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------------------

@JustinPetersMin wrote, “Experiencing God was one of the most damaging books introduced to the evangelical world in over a hundred years.” 11:01 PM · Jan 31, 2026

That us a lot of power in a book. False doctrine does not only emerge from the pulpit. In fact, it is more likely to emerge from the tangential ministries in a church, such as the women’s Bible study, the church Library, or brought in as evil seeds from external conferences members attend elsewhere.

Why was “Experiencing God” so damaging? Let’s take a look.

Issue #1: Normalizing hearing from God

5 Solas wrote on X about Blackaby and Experiencing God, “The false teaching that the way God speaks to His people under the New Covenant is audibly or internally by some “still small voice,” and not through His all-sufficient (?? What is this?)

written Word, has done unimaginable harm to the church. The idea that it’s not a personal relationship unless you are hearing voices or getting impressions is damnable. (Oh really? Damnable? So far, just assertions. So, why does this cause "unimaginable harm" to the church? Please explain.)

You are essentially saying that God doesn’t speak through His Word.” Jan 31 (No, the idea that people can hear from God does not mean God doesn't speak through the Bible. See, we simply respond with a counter-assertion. Absent evidence, that's all that's required of us.)

This issue relates to the “Sufficiency of Scripture.” (Ms. Prata will helpfully define this phrase in the next sentence.)

We often refer to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 when saying that God’s written word as contained in the 66 books of the Bible is enough for the Christian to learn, absorb, and live by. (Correct. "Sufficient" and "enough" are pretty much synonymous.)

We do not see and interpret signs or omens, hear whispers, or listen to audible voices directing our steps. (Non Sequitur.)

The verse says:

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.

Note the words- All, fully, every. Those words are quantifiers that indicate total, complete, or inclusive quantity. Note what the Bible is good for- all the things a Christian might need to do- teaching (and learning), training, rebuking. Note the benefits of living by the Word only- righteousness, capable, equipped. (Whoops. Ms. Prata was doing so well there for a brief moment. She was accurately explaining the verse until her last statement, where she writes "Word only." This is categorically false, for the verse does not tell us that only the Scriptures supply these benefits. "All," Fully," and "every" does not mean "only." Scripture being sufficient [enough] does mean "there is nothing else."

In fact, Ms. Prata doesn't even believe this. She quotes Justin Peters, 5 Solas, and later Sproul, so she clearly doesn't believe in "living by the Word only.")

How many verses does one need when we have such a perfect description of the Christian life right there in 2 Timothy? But wait, there’s more: Hebrews 4:12, Romans 15:4, Matthew 4:4 and other verses reinforce the sufficiency of God’s word alone. (Let's quote:

He. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

 "Word" is logos, "a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit. This verse is not referring to the Bible.

Ro. 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 

"Scriptures" is graphé. The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures... Ahhh, this verse is referring to the Bible, specifically, the OT.

Mt. 4:4 Jesus answered, “It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’“

"Word" is rhēmati, a spoken word, made "by the living voice." This verse is not referring to the Bible.

With the Greek before us, and the definitions, we can see only one of these verses is actually about the Bible. but Romans 15:4 is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, since at that time there was no NT.

More to the point, Ms. Prata's assertion was that "the word alone" is all there is for us. This is the matter to demonstrate, but none of these Scriptures tell us this.

This is the only attempt at a biblical argument that Ms. Prata will make. The balance of her article is speculation. )

Issue #2: Believing we can see where God is working

A refrain comes up frequently in the book: “watch to see where God is working and join Him in His work.”

One question: Where ISN’T God working? (Ms. Prata thinks that there are no manifestations of God's special working, but she simply presumes it. But what does the Bible teach? This issue is so dangerous, right? Damnable, even?)

There is not one molecule not under his jurisdiction, command, and movement. (Non Sequitur. Discerning God working is a separate matter from His general sustaining of the universe.)

If there is one maverick molecule in the universe (as Sproul famously said) then God is not God, not in control, and not working. (Is this really true? Where in the Bible do we find this?)

It would invalidate His divine sovereignty. (?? What is this, and how would a "maverick molecule" invalidate it?

Ms. Prata is a Reformed/Calvinist who believes that God is totally deterministic. That is, He doesn't allow things to happen, rather, He causes everything. Therefore, no randomness, no choice, no free will, no natural processes occur in creation. 

This is a significant doctrinal matter apart from whether or not God speaks today.)

One thought: Do we, being sinners with sin-darkened minds and a finite perspective, have the intelligence to see and know exactly where God is doing a work? (??? We are no longer sinners, and we have the mind of Christ. We are new creations by the power of the Holy Spirit in us, who informs us:

1Co. 2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.  

 

1Jn. 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

If God is "doing a work" like bringing a revival or saving a soul or healing a sickness, we are most certainly able to discern that He is moving in a remarkable way.)

The way Providence (??? What is this?)

operates is that it sometimes can be seen but only AFTER the work is done. ("Sometimes?" What about the other times? And what is the scriptural basis of this claim?)

One warning: God doesn’t ‘invite’ us to join Him. He commands us to do His will. (Nit picking words, and another undocumented claim.

Jn. 7:37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.

Mt. 4:19 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”

Mt. 11:28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

Are these invitations, or commands? Please explain.)

Working out our salvation with fear and trembling and pursuing holiness is not a cafeteria experience of choosing. ‘I want to join Him there, but not there, that looks uncomfortable…’ (Ridiculous conclusion. This is not an application of the idea of invitation.

Now, the reader should note that Ms. Prata did not make a biblical argument at all. Probably because there isn't one.)


Issue #3: That we can come to know God through our own, self-interpreted experiences

In the book, Blackaby (and co-author Claude King) constantly prioritize personal experience over the commands of God through scripture. From the book blurb at Lifeway: “God is inviting you into an intimate love relationship through which He reveals to you His will, His ways, and His work” but the book teaches that He does this not through scripture, but through our experiences and observations. (We are not convinced that this is an accurate representation.)

We don’t come to know God by looking around and observing. (Does Blackaby actually make this claim?)

Romans 1 teaches that the danger in doing this is that we begin to worship the creation and not the creator. (Non Sequitur. The idea of that we can hear from God has nothing to do with worshiping creation.)

Justin Peters said in his teaching linked below that, in “Experiencing God, Henry Blackaby says this: “If you have troubling hearing God speak, you are in trouble at the very heart of your Christian experience.”

That is a dire warning that Blackaby and King issued in their book. ARE we in trouble is we don’t hear God speak? Many conscientious and committed Christians would not want to make a mistake in failing to do something God wants us to do, so they would in all diligence strain to listen. Others who are not as conscientious but are more prideful would seize that claim and puff themselves up as conduits for God. (THIS is the great danger, that hearing from God might possibly make you think you are superior?

We suppose that pride is never a problem for people like Ms. Prata or Mr. Peters, right?)

Many professing Christians did just that and claims began popping up like multiplying viruses that various people claimed to hear from God all the time and ‘He said…’

Peters continued, “I would submit to you that the resource, the book that is singularly most responsible for introducing charismatic theology into at least theoretically non-charismatic churches is Experiencing God by Henry Blackaby that came out in 1991. If you go back before 1991, at least in non-charismatic churches, almost everyone would have understood that God speaks to us through the Bible, we speak to Him in prayer. (Merely making assertions. We want to know where in the Bible we find these ideas.)

Today hardly anybody understands that; and I believe experiencing God is singularly most responsible for introducing these notions into non-charismatic churches.” –end Justin Peters quote. (So the danger is... what?)

The Bible is the most trustworthy source for living life under God’s heaven, for understanding HIs will, and for how to pursue holiness. God gave us His book and that is where He speaks, nowhere else. (Ms. Prata has asserted this but has not documented it.)

Avoid “Experiencing God” and experience living by His word from the Bible instead.

Further Resources

“The book that is singularly most responsible for introducing charismatic theology into at least theoretically non-charismatic churches is Experiencing God by Henry Blackaby…” said Justin Peters at the 2019 Truth Matters Conference.
https://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/09/non-sola-scriptura-blackaby-view-of_15.html

Bob Dewaay at Critical Issues Commentary: Unbiblical Teachings on Prayer and Experiencing God