My comments are only the article by A.J. Baxter, the second item down. I don't doubt Mr. Baxter's intentions in his writings, yet his assessment of C.H. Spurgeon's theology is based on a rather faulty foundation, as he mainly goes to experiences and then draws his conclusions.
One of Baxter's main critiques of Spurgeon are based on his own guess that Spurgeon's senses of personal sin were never really that deep. He says that he probably never had deep convictions of sin because he had not committed heavy or gross sins as a young man, that his experiences were probably not that intense or prolonged, that he was probably not properly emptied of his self-sufficiency, and was probably not well aware of the prevailing power of unbelief in his own heart. He believes that this is the reason that Spurgeon in his assessment was not well-rounded as a theologian, and preached salvation and coming to Christ in the manner that he did.
It's possible that A.J. Baxter never knew Spurgeon's conversion testimony, but he actually underwent a miserable conversion, and it lasted at least a couple of years. It was similar to the experiences of men such as Owen, Edwards or Calvin, and wasn't different than the kind of cases that the Puritans routinely treated. But if as a child your mother read you portions of Alleine's "Alarm to the Uncoverted" you probably wouldn't have an easy time either. You should be able to find it by consulting his autobiography.
But the end of conviction of sin is to get someone to rely on Christ. It is good to have convictions of sin, and we should mourn for our sins, yet its intensity or prolongedness should not be the measures of our conversion experiences. In that case, you only want as much as it takes to get you to lean on Christ; no more (for you might self-righteously despair of mercy), and no less (for you might self-righteously come short of the narrow gate).
At least for myself, when I think of writings that seem to purge out self-righteousness thoroughly in coming to Christ, some of Spurgeon's own sermons and illustrations are the first things that come to mind.
Wouldn't it be better to say that Spurgeon's deep experience actually assisted him in preaching the free grace of Christ?
Supposing that the author's facts were correct though, and Spurgeon never had a prolonged and intense experience, it's not a requisite (helpful maybe, but not a requisite). True and heart-felt conviction of sin, yes, but the thief on the cross was mocking Christ one moment, and was penitent the next and assured of pardon. Matthew Henry and his father both had relatively "stable" conversions.
