What are some criticisms of "Spirit-filled" church soteriology?

I know some people may tar all Charismatics and Pentecostals with the same brush, but the reality is that 'Spirit-filled' is a description that crosses nearly all denominational boundaries and soteriological perspectives (eg there are Charismatic Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Baptists and there are even some 'Reformed' believers who claim to be 'continuationists'). A legitimate critique should be focused on particular groups and their associated doctrines and praxis - to lump all in together is unhelpful and obscures the reality of the situation.

Nevertheless, it is true that "Spirit-filled churches" do attract a range of both internal and external critcism associated with the distinctive (and broadly in common with each other) doctrines and practices they promote ranging from mild rebuke over displays of 'zeal without knowledge' - akin to Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church regarding their disorderly meetings - right through to asserting they are a completely false demonically-empowered religion - preaching a false gospel and therefore leading people astray from 'the simplicity of Christ' (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3) and into damnable error. These last, of course, with clear soteriological implications.

These issues are not exactly new - in fact they've been around since the early church and in particular the days of Montanus - but more recently following the Charismatic renewal and especially the Third Wave Movement, criticism has been far more vocal, forceful and organized. One of the most prominent critics at the centre of this 'push back' is John McArthur whose 1993 book Charismatic Chaos argued for an acceptance of Cessationism and corresponding rejection of Charismatic theology and practice. More recently (Ocotber 2013), McArthur hosted the Strange Fire Conference dedicated to this purpose. Of particular relevance to your question is the following question and answer posted on this site:

Should I respond to charismatic people as straying brothers in Christ or as unbelievers?

I agree that the sign gifts have ceased. But how should I deal with charismatics when I encounter them? Do I treat their error as no big deal and ignore it or as a significant issues and address it with them as brothers in Christ? Should I see their supposed gifts as coming from another god and treat them as unbelievers in need of the gospel?

There is so much variation within the charismatic movement that we shouldn’t pick one set method of approaching them. Some charismatics are truly born again but many are not. Some hold largely to sound doctrine, but many hold to doctrines which are seriously flawed. So a one-size-fits-all method will likely be inappropriate most of the time.

Yes, there are many unbiblical and dangerous teachings in the charismatic movement, but our attitude toward charismatics and our conversations with them must be full of love, patience, and biblical truth. Emotional overreaction and biblically weak argumentation will only hinder our efforts to help them see the truth. On the other hand, calm but serious discussion of biblical teaching regarding the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts can bring them to an understanding of the truth.

Whether a person is born again or not, his need remains the same—he must learn the truth of God from Scripture. Paul’s advice about how to approach those who teach false doctrine gives us guidance: “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24–26). (source)