Was Spurgeon clairvoyant?

I'm going to comment on a statement by Frank Turk. But before I get to that, let's put the debate in context by furnishing some background information:

While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, `There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took nine pence, and there was four pence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for four pence!' A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, `Do you know Mr Spurgeon?' `Yes,' replied the man `I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and under his preaching, by God's grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened? I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place: Mr Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took nine pence the Sunday before, and that there was four pence profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.' 

While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, ‘There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took ninepence, and there was fourpence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for fourpence!’ A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, ‘Do you know Mr. Spurgeon?’ ‘Yes,’ replied the man, ‘I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and, under his preaching, by God’s grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened? I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place; Mr. Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took ninepence the Sunday before, and that there was fourpence profit out of it. I did take ninepence that day, and fourpence was just the profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.' 

“I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description, that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, ‘Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. I have sometimes seen persons nudge their neighbours with their elbow, because they had got a smart hit, and they have been heard to say, when they were going out, ‘The preacher told us just what we said to one another when we went in at the door. 

The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon (London: Curts & Jennings, 1899), 2:226-27.

Let's compare that with some biblical examples:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? (Acts 5:1-3). 

24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you (1 Cor 14:24-25). 

But when Naaman had gone from him a short distance, 20 Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, “See, my master has spared this Naaman the Syrian, in not accepting from his hand what he brought. As the Lord lives, I will run after him and get something from him.” 21 So Gehazi followed Naaman. And when Naaman saw someone running after him, he got down from the chariot to meet him and said, “Is all well?” 22 And he said, “All is well. My master has sent me to say, ‘There have just now come to me from the hill country of Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets. Please give them a talent of silver and two changes of clothing.’” 23 And Naaman said, “Be pleased to accept two talents.” And he urged him and tied up two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of clothing, and laid them on two of his servants. And they carried them before Gehazi. 24 And when he came to the hill, he took them from their hand and put them in the house, and he sent the men away, and they departed. 25 He went in and stood before his master, and Elisha said to him, “Where have you been, Gehazi?” And he said, “Your servant went nowhere.” 26 But he said to him, “Did not my heart go when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? Was it a time to accept money and garments, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, male servants and female servants? (2 Kgs 5:19-26). 

8 Once when the king of Syria was warring against Israel, he took counsel with his servants, saying, “At such and such a place shall be my camp.” 9 But the man of God sent word to the king of Israel, “Beware that you do not pass this place, for the Syrians are going down there.” 10 And the king of Israel sent to the place about which the man of God told him. Thus he used to warn him, so that he saved himself there more than once or twice.11 And the mind of the king of Syria was greatly troubled because of this thing, and he called his servants and said to them, “Will you not show me who of us is for the king of Israel?” 12 And one of his servants said, “None, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom.”32 Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him. Now the king had dispatched a man from his presence, but before the messenger arrived Elisha said to the elders, “Do you see how this murderer has sent to take off my head? Look, when the messenger comes, shut the door and hold the door fast against him. Is not the sound of his master's feet behind him?” (2 Kgs 6:8-12,32).

These are Biblical examples of prophetic clairvoyance, involving extrasensory knowledge of what people are thinking or planning. Private conversations. That sort of thing. Compare that with Spurgeon's self-reports. 

Now for Frank's statement:

Your question assumes Spurgeon gave up his “experiences” without any comment or reference to what we should make of Charismatic outbursts.
In fact, as I read the evidence on the internet, you are the person who invented the argument that Spurgeon was, in fact, some kind of cautious Charismatic – and for that, you should be hung out to dry. Only Sam Storms has had the temerity to say that even if we accept the reports with no comment, Spurgeon himself did not see them as “charismatic gifts,” but the army of people foisting this argument on the world cannot see this glaring problem. In the same way we should interpret Isaiah’s view of Isaiah as normative, we should see Spurgeon’s view of Spurgeon as normative and not make the man into some sort of imbecile who cannot detect the presence of God. We should interpret Spurgeon’s experiences the way Spurgeon did and not the way you (conveniently) frame them.
Spurgeon rejected the idea of ongoing Apostolic, miraculous gifts. Saying he didn’t because he had some experiences of intuition or wisdom is like saying that there are more prophets in the past we ought to be looking for because they had words from God --but because they denied they were actually God’s words, we may have lost them. That is: we can’t really trust people to know if God spoke to them or not. If I were looking to score points, I’d say, “but of course, that’s actually how you frame modern prophecy,” but I am not looking to score points. I’m trying to answer this question in spite of its lopsided and (it seems) self-ignorant biases.
Spurgeon rejects your argument here. I’ll let him speak for himself about his own life and experience.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-cornucopia-of-good-will.html

i) Frank is recasting the issue in tendentious terms. The issue isn't how to classify Spurgeon's theology, but how to classify his experience. Whether Spurgeon would classify himself as a charismatic is a red herring. The real question is how we should classify his experience. This is not, in the first place, a question of how to classify the man, but how to classify his experience. Do these cases qualify as prophetic knowledge, or even the "gift of prophecy," according to Biblical exemplars? Frank's reply is evasive. 

To take a comparison: suppose a patient goes to the doctor. Not only does he describe his symptoms, but he tells the doctor that he's sure he was suffering a heart attack. 

However, the doctor disregards the patient's self-diagnosis. He's only interested in the patient's symptoms. Based on the symptoms (and other tests), the doctor will perform his own diagnosis. The fact that the patient interprets his symptoms as angina is irrelevant to his actual condition. Maybe it's just heartburn or acid reflux. There's an elementary distinction between the patient's self-reported symptoms, and the patient's self-diagnosis. 

ii) Spurgeon's experience is cited because he's a prima facie credible witness. So what's the best explanation for his apparently supernatural insights? In theory, these are the possibilities:

a) The primary or secondary sources were forged. These attributions are spurious.

I can't disprove that. However, Spurgeon was a famous man who lived in the 19C. The primary source material is extant. He's widely studied by church historians and other scholars. Is there any evidence that the sources were forged? The onus is on the skeptic.

b) It was just coincidental. 

Given the detailed specificity of the cases, it's implausible to chalk it up to coincidence, especially when the examples are cumulative. That's a last-ditch explanation, if you had an a priori commitment to a naturalistic explanation.

c) Spurgeon was mistaken.

It's hard to see how he could be mistaken about anything that specific. Where's the ambiguity?

d) Spurgeon was lying.

That's possible. However, Spurgeon didn't make his reputation as a clairvoyant. And it comes down to the question of which is more plausible: was Spurgeon a conman or a devout Christian? If you're an atheist, then a naturalistic explanation is always preferable. But why would a Christian opt for that explanation in Spurgeon's case? 

e) Spurgeon was a demoniac. 

If (d) is implausible, (e) is even less plausible.