You're not answering the question of how he can hold unbelievers responsible for unbelief when he chose not to give them the life that would enable them to believe. Your Doctrine makes him a liar.
		
		
	 
God can and does hold man accountable for their unbelief. That God commands what man 
ought to do, in no way implies man 
can do what he is commanded to do. Again, 
ought does not imply can. Such a 
humanistic notion is contrary to Scripture's teachings about 
the moral ability of fallen man. Such a view robs God of His prerogative to dispose of His creatures as He sees fit to do. God is 
Creator, we are the 
created. Your continued attempts to bridge that gap and elevate mankind Godward will always run contrary to what Scripture teaches us about the sovereignty of God.
If God wants to save these men who cannot do what they ought to do, we find from Scripture that He will grant them the ability to actually do what He commands them to do, e.g., Eze. 36:26. That God does not do so for each and every person 
in Adam should be of no concern to us. All mankind 
in the loins of Adam had their chance in Adam's probation in the Garden as the Federal Representative of us all. Adam failed. From that failure Adam's sin is imputed to all his progeny by ordinary generation. All are born sinners, sinning because they are sinners, adjudged as guilty
.
Man's notions about what is 
just are but shadows of how God knows justice. God is the 
archetype. We are the 
ectype. Our knowledge is 
ectypal—knowledge known as humans can know knowledge—not 
archetypal—knowledge only God knows or as only God can know it. In other words, what we 
know is not exactly what God knows, nor exactly how God knows it. Of course God 
knows what 
we know, but we don't know what He knows nor do we know it the way He knows it.
Our 
ectypal knowledge is true, but 
analogical to what God knows. God speaks 
univocally, and sadly, sinful persons frequently speak 
equivocally, rather than 
analogically (thinking God's thoughts after him). The ectypal knowledge of God that is granted to creatures by revelation is not the absolute self-knowledge of God but the knowledge of God
 as it has been accommodated to and made fit for the finite consciousness—hence anthropomorphized.
We cannot know things exactly as God knows them, so using "
univocal" when describing our knowledge is simply erroneous. 
For example. 
God is a person. 
Is God exactly a person as we are? No. 
The predicate "
person" does not mean the same exact thing to God and man. It is not 
univocal. God is a person here in an 
analogical sense, just as Scripture describes Him. 
God has condescended to man in Scripture, and uses human analogies that hold our hands to understand his revelation. This analogical language in all of Scripture uses correct analogies, for God chose them and it is God's speech in human language, but 
they are not univocal descriptions. Claims to univocity usually end up in 
rationalism, holding that we possess autonomous knowledge, and even denial of mystery in Scripture. 
All of Scripture is analogical, as a necessary aspect of the 
Creator-
created distinction. God is not greater than man in degree only. God is in a whole separate category and what God knows about himself and anything else is qualitatively (and quantitatively, of course) different from what we know. 
Unfortunately, modern era proponents that argue against analogy, often while misunderstanding the nature of the topic. For example, Pinnock and Sanders, immediately come to mind, both of whom have argued at one point or another that we can know things 
univocally from Scripture. This sort of thinking gives rise to the 
humanistic views we see way too often about God, especially in 
open theism, of which Pinnock and Boyd are held up as examples. Apparently, some are unwilling to accept a plain 
didactic that God is 
above, we are 
below, and 
God's thoughts are not our thoughts. We of orthodox Christendom understand this 
ontological divide between the Creator and the created, making a clear distinction in God's and our knowledge, 
archetypal-
ectypal, as an 
epistemological ground. 
"
Oh God, grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire."
AMR