Piper is free to have and express his opinion about Arminians and exegesis, but it would be helpful if he would at least reveal which Arminian Bible scholars he has read and found wanting and why. Instead his response was merely dismissive and ought not to be taken very seriously—unless one takes whatever Piper says seriously just because Piper says it.
The concept of love (particularly how God loves) is a bit different on Calvinism. On Calvinism God loves the elect. Jesus died and rose again, for the few elect. This means that by definition, God as described by the consistent Calvinist is not omnibenevolent. Of course, a Calvinist could redefine the word “love” as it relates to God and claim that it is “loving” for God to allow those he loves to go to hell when they simply could not choose otherwise. In fact, this is the approach that many Calvinists take.
The question is NEVER “Does Christ receive sinners?” but “Do sinners receive Christ?” He opens His arms wide for sinners, but many sinners close their minds and hearts to Him. He would accept them, but they reject Him. That’s ok, right? I mean that’s their choice.
Speaking of the incarnation of Jesus, Martin Luther said that there were three miracles involved. “The first, that God became man; the second, that a virgin was a mother; and the third, that the heart of man should believe this.” Many hearts do not believe this. While we evangelical Christians are celebrating the entry of divinity into the world through the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ, the world is filled with those who object to this classic Christian doctrine.
Even the idea of believing refers to individuals since only individuals can exercise faith; I do not see anything in the passage that would indicate that this “all” is restricted to something like all people groups, including some who can be saved. I do not think the passage even hints that this “all” is different from “all” including each person previously spoken of as under sin; of which “there is no distinction.” This understanding corresponds precisely with its usage before and in the following verses.