More on “Experimental Religion”
After reading your exhortation to active participation and the question and answer given in the letters section (Standard Bearer, Nov. 15, 1991) I felt moved to respond.
I agree wholeheartedly with your answer. Our experiences must always be examined and interpreted by the spotlight of Scripture rather than interpreting Scripture by experience, as many do today.
I would say that in many cases where the term “Experimental Religion” is used it is referring to the practical application of Scripture in the believer’s life. Such was the case with A.W. Pink as well as those mentioned by the reader.
However, there are those who hold their experience (Experimental Religion) as a proof text of spirituality and they are subject to deception and disillusion. This discouragement will result in defeat and has as its foundation doctrinal error.
If you look at the widespread rush toward psychological cures and counseling by many in the professing church, you see an attitude that Scripture and its application by the Holy Spirit is not enough. Hence, they have departed the faith to lean on their own understanding.
Our foundation must always be the Word of God, for only then shall we “have good success” (Joshua 1:8). Whether we call it “Experimental” or “Experiential” matters not as long as our definition as well as practice is Scripturally, doctrinally sound.
Thanks for touching upon this subject.