Does Sola Scriptura imply that one should expect no personal spiritual experience of the Gospel?

I am seeking answers on the basis of Protestant Trinitarianism. ----- As referenced in a previous answer regarding *Sola Scriptura* , Steven Lawson quotes Martin Luther, in a specialised article on *Sola Scriptura*, and explains the force of Luther's words : >*Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves, I am bound by the Scriptures that I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot to do otherwise. Here I stand, God help me.* > >By this declaration, Luther testified that the Bible is the sole authority upon which he stood. He asserted the Scripture is a higher authority than church traditions, ecclesiastical councils, or even the pope himself. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church had espoused the authority of the Scripture and these other things. But Luther rebutted this position and declared that Scripture alone has the right to rule in the church. By this fearless posture, he established and embodied Sola Scriptura. > >*Martin Luther and Sola Scriptura* by Steven J Lawson April 2018 But I have noticed that some appear to suggest that *Sola Scriptura* would deny any kind of personal and spiritual experience of the Gospel, leaving one to merely assimilate the words of scriptural doctrine, appropriate them to oneself and assume that this was all one could expect of Christian faith : an intellectual apprehension of biblical knowledge. My own understanding of *Sola Scriptura* is that all Gospel doctrine and all matters of Church Government and all authoritative guidance of personal behaviour have already been revealed, through the words of Jesus Christ and his own chosen Apostles, in Holy Spirit inspired and inerrantly recorded words of scripture, which is not to be added to by claims of "personal revelation". Nevertheless it is also true, as Hart the hymnist wrote, that: >True religion's more than notion, something must be known and felt. ... words which inspired a book to be written *More than Notion* (with a foreword by Dr. Martin LLoyd-Jones) urging Christians not to be content with a profession of words and intellectual assent, but to seek the real experience of salvation, through the Gospel. One example in point is that of Abel who, it is said, "received witness that he was righteous", Hebrews 11:4. He, being justified by faith, understood that future redemption was by means of the sacrificial example of God (coats of skins) which, demonstrated example, Abel then followed. There was *the receiving of a witness* that he was justified. It was not a mere assenting that, since justification existed, therefore by intellectually accepting that fact, he would have, automatically, obtained it. Am I incorrect in my understanding that *Sola Scriptura* does *not imply* that I should be bereft of personal spiritual experience? For it is my own understanding that *every Gospel doctrine* is to be entered into by experience and not merely to be assented to, in the intellect. >The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power [1 Corinthians 4:20 KJV]