Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
Problems with Free Grace Theology and Reformed Theology
Ever since Zane Hodges published his book Absolutely Free as a response to John MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus in 1989, there has been an ongoing war between Reformed Soteriology and Free Grace Soteriology. Reformed theologians and preachers often pejoratively call Free Grace Soteriology "easy believism" or "cheap grace," while Free Grace theologians and preachers refer to Reformed Soteriology as "Lordship Salvation." (Although, some proponents of Reformed Theology like to say that it is an in-house feud among Dispensationalists, this is not true. As I will explain below, Reformed Soteriology at its core is a form of Lordship Salvation. Some preachers like John MacArthur just preach it more heavily than others.)
Having observed the controversy for a few years, and having spent time listening to and reading proponents of both sides, I have concluded that both sides have some things right and some things wrong. In this article, I intend to briefly describe what I believe are the problems of these two viewpoints, but before doing this, I'll quickly mention what I think they get right.
It is my opinion that Reformed Soteriology is basically right in its doctrines of grace. The five points of Calvinism generally systematize the teachings of the Bible and accurately reflect reality. For example, if limited atonement is not true, then it is hard to understand how billions of people die in their sins without hearing the Gospel. Reformed Theology's emphasis on the glory of God, predestination, and the active and passive obedience of Christ are very helpful. At the same, I believe Free Grace Soteriology is correct to emphasize that salvation is not evidenced by works, and it helpfully places emphasis on eternal security.
I will now give my main points of disagreement with Reformed Soteriology. (1) Reformed Soteriology misunderstands the nature of saving faith. As I have written repeatedly in other articles on this website, Reformed theologians add the elusive and mystical element of fiducia to their definition of faith. As a result, they explain faith in ways that go beyond the bare persuasion of the truth of the Gospel. (2) Related to this, Reformed theologians make works inherent in faith by likening faith to a fruit tree that produces good fruit. As a result, they insist that faith is evidenced by good works, thus distorting the biblical teaching that faith and works are antithetical. (3) Reformed theologians talk about "perseverance of the saints" as if it were part of the Gospel. The Gospel is solely the proclamation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the endurance of believers cannot be mixed with it. Some Reformed theologians seem to recognize this problem, and as a result, they speak of the "preservation of the saints," but this is just a milder form of the same problem. The Gospel doesn't require that God "see us through" or "keep us until the end" because Jesus, as our substitute, already endured to the end for us. (Just for the record, I do believe that "perseverance of the saints" and "preservation of the saints" are true doctrines, but I do not believe that they are requirements or evidences of salvation. If anyone is offended that a moment of bare belief in the bare work of Christ is sufficient for salvation, then such a person has not properly understood the Gospel and is still mixing faith and works.) Reformed Soteriology at its core is Lordship salvation because it holds to these three points.
I will now give my main points of disagreement with Free Grace Soteriology. (1) Free Grace Soteriology likewise misunderstands the nature of saving faith. In particular, Free Grace theologians describe faith as the exercise of libertarian free will by which a person appropriates salvation. As a result, the ultimate responsibility of "getting saved" rests upon the sinner. God is only able to do so much, and beyond that, the sinner is left to his own devices to believe in Christ. (2) Related to this, there is debate among Free Grace theologians as to the meaning of faith itself. Some of them describe faith as a choice, others define it to include the element of fiducia described above, and strangely, some describe it correctly as the persuasion of the truth of the Gospel, but then paradoxically say that such a persuasion is the act of man's libertarian free will, as if man is capable of deciding what he wants to be persuaded by. (For more details on why faith is not a choice, see my article here.) (3) Free Grace Soteriology doesn't seem to recognize (and if it does recognize, it certainly doesn't emphasize) the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. More problematic, however, is that even in terms of the passive obedience of Christ, Free Grace theologians don't actually think the death of Christ saved anyone, but only makes people savable. Without a correct view of the atonement, it is not possible to properly understand the Gospel. In this respect, Free Grace theologians may say that "Christ did it all," but their soteriology ultimately leaves salvation in the hands of the sinner.