In the Wikipedia article's "Would a perfectly loving God prevent nonresistant nonbelief?" section, the main criticism is the preconceived notion that God would want to "prevent inculpable nonbelief" in the first place; and personally that pretty much sums it up for me as well.
God (at least, the God as perceived in fundamentally Lutheran terms) may be "perfectly loving" but that doesn't mean he isn't going to let those he loves not reciprocate those feelings. A major motif within Christian circles is the idea of free will (which, granted, varies depending on the branch); if anything, God exercises his longing for a relationship with us miserably Hell-borne earthlings through the provision of choices which we have the freedom to choose from. One of those choices can also be not to love or not to want to have a relationship with him. Biblically, that choice is supposed to condemn your soul to Hell, regardless of your qualities as a person. Technically, however, God is still perfectly loving, and still perfectly loves those who don't love him.
The reason we're given that choice, though, I believe, is because that in order to start and develop a relationship you must be capable of making the choice to willingly be a part of it. If you don't, then it's not a genuine relationship. It's just a forced partnership with a complete lack of heart, and a high chance of falling apart. And if there is no genuine relationship with God, then man can fall again -- because even if God is supposedly "perfect", we technically aren't. His demands are strict, but in no rendition of him in any branch of Chrisitanity does he not provide us the choice to abide to them. In the New Testament, Jesus emphasizes the act of serving; however, it's also clear that it's out of his own will, out of his own desire to serve others, that he chooses to be a servant. If God instantaneously made all men, women, and children wholly serve him with a snap of his non-corporeal fingers then it's him who would be making the choice, not us -- and that, in turn, is slavery, not servantship.
Anyways, in the end, I think the argument made here is a good attempt but better ones do exist. The main nitpick would probably be with #3, which says "If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists." because it suggests that God can not be perfectly loving while others don't openly love him as well, while I believe this is technically an untrue assumption. It can be considered exponentially tragic, then, for those who do believe in God and in the fact that those "non-resistantly unaware" of God's existence will be condemned to Hell, as that suggests that numerous amounts of people around the world have condemned fates and might not even know it, and probably would even embrace the idea if they were introduced to it -- however, that's where the New Testament's insistence on "spreading the gospel" comes in, being the reason behind evangelical missions and crusades and so on and so forth. It's because the responsibility was laid upon the people.
