What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[GrandizerII]

Broadly logically possible: Through logic alone, it is possible. Logic alone does not preclude it from being true. 
Actually possible: Can it actually exist in some possible world.

They're the same thing, Steve. What you mean to say is that the distinction is between "logically possible without context" and "logically possible given a certain context".

I am claiming that the premise: "It is logically possible for God to create a world where everyone always chooses good" is broadly logically possible. However, because it is a contingent proposition (on free will), it seems like it is not actually possible. In other words, there is a factor in addition to logic that might make it impossible.

What is this necessary factor that makes this impossible in any possible world? Assuming that libertarian free will is logical: if you possess libertarian free will, then you should be free to choose good all the time, and this should apply to all human beings possessing this free will. Therefore, this should be the case in at least one possible world, unless there is a necessary factor that I am unaware of that prevents such a world from being possible. But you can't just argue it's unintuitive. Human intuition is often useless when arguing metaphysics and such. That's why we have logic.

And it's not just me saying this is "actually possible". The author(s) from the link I provided above (who clearly seem to be academic and well-versed in philosophy) agree that there is a possible world in which humans can choose good all the time, and they refer to the story of Adam and Eve to make their point. The page is dead now for some reason, but when it's back online, go there and scroll to the part where the author(s) discuss Plantinga's W4.

3. We need to tighten up the definitions/positions for discussion purposes (these taken from the first sentence of each of the articles from Wikipedia):

Physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. 
Dualism or duality is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. 

I am a non-physicalist, non-deterministic, dualist-interactionist. And as such I believe that the immaterial mind has actual free will to make real choices not always influenced by some prior cause.

Then it's sometimes by chance alone, so when this is the case, it's not really a choice. So we go back to the logically incoherent definition I provided earlier, and so wonder how you can even think that this is a logical concept. The free will you speak of makes no logical sense.