I still pose the same question. How do you reconcile, with free will, the many biblical statements indicating that God is absolutely sovereign in all things? Isn’t this essentially the same type of question you ask of people who believe in the hell doctrine? Don’t you urge them to study the matter thoroughly, to carefully examine the biblical evidence? Of course, if God is in command of everything, including our wills and desires, why would Adam and Eve be exceptions? It seems a number of people don’t think this matters? I think it does, but short of insisting upon it, doesn’t it behoove us to make the effort to find out? Does somebody who believes in a God and Savior who will consign most people who’ve ever lived to eternal, conscious torment believe in the same God you do? Does a Muslim believe in the same God you do? Buddhist theology has something called the dharmakaya, the truth body of Buddha. Is that the same God who made a covenant with Abraham? Why then would Jesus insist that you have to align with Him; saying also, he that has ears to hear, let him hear? Who’s ears are those? Why do we suppose that we can legitimately claim anything as our own? Well, I’ll leave you with that. God bless.
The problem surfaces if Adam had no autonomy why would God present the curse? So in your vernacular, If God was so sovereign, why was there a fall, and why did Christ have to enter the scene? 
The FACT remains that human choice is a given all through scripture. To say that choices are really fictions, or that the offers of deliverance/salvation were made in bad faith, is just not a cogent position.
We all have to live with the tension between ‘freedom to choose’ and the ‘sovereignty of the Lord’. It works out just fine.
So truly with regards to so-called “libertarian” we could take a leaf out of Jesus’ book do likewise…
Their “doctrine” was their “hypocrisy”… leaven that permeated their whole existence with clamberings of self-righteousness where their deeds made a mockery of their words, as per… Lk 12:1; 11:39, 42, 44; 18:11 et al.
This basically comes down to following Jesus’ stated and demonstrated example, where unlike Adam, in the garden… he freely chooses to submit his own will to the Father, i.e., he exercised freewill choice (Lk 22:42).
The imposition of “libertarian” into the moniker is completely bogus IMO. There is choice and its relative consequence BUT IT IS always choice nonetheless…
My understanding of doctrine is it is a teaching, like justification by faith, universalism, premillenialism, etc.
Hypocrisy, OTOH, is something quite different, and is related to how a person or persons act or behave or live their lives.
In Matthew 16 Jesus tells His disciples to beware of the teaching, not the hypocrisy, of the Pharisees and Sadducees. For example, the Sadducees taught that there is no resurrection, no hell, no afterlife.
Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Mt.16:12)
Certainly a choice is always a choice. Who said otherwise? 
Set a dog full of urine in front of two trees (tree A & tree B) and it will make its choice between the two which to urinate on. You could even call that a free will choice. After all, you didn’t drag the dog over to tree A and hold it there till it urinated. In which case the dog’s choice between two trees to urinate on would have been taken away. And it would have been compelled, contrained or forced to urinate at tree A. In the one case the dog has the free will to choose between the two trees. In the other case he can only choose tree A. Even though animals make choices and free will decisions, they don’t have Libertarian Free Will (LFW). theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will
Set two dishes, chocolate cake & raw carrots, before a child with a sweet tooth & say “choose”. The child is going to choose according to her nature and disposition at that particular moment in time. There is no evidence she has LFW any more than the dog in the example above. The determinist says she does what she must do & could not have done otherwise.
In Joshua 24:15, men need to hear what the options are to know what they are since they are based on knowledge, not on bodily functions like urinating. Then they are accountable to the Potter who is moulding them via knowledge and life experiences, including many factors, forces and influences. When a man hears the word of the Lord, those that repent or choose the Lord’s way are those who were granted repentance by God. So it is said if they chose or believe God, it was because God irresistably willed it in them by His grace & they could not have done otherwise. thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45612
Then Joshua said to the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins. (Josh.24:19)
When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:31)
with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, (2 Tim.2:25)
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Heb. (12;2)
for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Phil.2:13)
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (Jn.6:29)
And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe – as many as were appointed to life eonian (Acts 13:48)
By the grace of God:
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Heb.2:9).
By God’s will, foreknowledge and determinism:
this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (Acts 2:23)
Indeed, the Son of Man will go as it has been determined (Lk.22:22a)
I always find it useful to go with any actual definitions given and in the first reference given Jesus defines their ‘leaven’ i.e., that which permeated everything they were, which by its nature was inclusive of their entire doctrine/teaching AND behaviour.
The only thing in this paragraph relative to “Joshua 24:15” was the fact that you mentioned it… nothing else that followed had anything to do with it let alone challenge the common-sense reading of it. Nothing less than full personal accountability for THEIR OWN CHOICES is in view. So one doesn’t need to weirdly defer off onto dogs, cats, little children or even urinating to KNOW that freewill alone is CLEARLY portrayed in that verse, period!
NONE of that rules nor cancels out Jesus’ will; it just doesn’t. That you think it does is a mystery. 
Traditional Calvinists do reconcile free will and determination, via the Biblical passages - describing God’s sovereign… See gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html. Not that I agree with them - mind you.
And their version of the fall and redemption, is still easy to understand.
The challenge to your interpretation of Joshua 24:15 was in all the verses i quoted. The paragraph before those verses had to do with an explanation of how the verse fits in with a deterministic opinion of the passage.
Accountability is a Scriptural concept. Everyone will give an account of themselves to God (Rom.14:12). But AFIAK the word “responsibility” is nowhere found in the Scriptures. It certainly isn’t found, or even implied, but only assumed, in Joshua 24:15.
I already addressed the ideas of “choice” & “freewill” with the dog & child examples, showing that the mere mention of such words proves nothing re the existence or non-existence of Libertarian Free Will.
To continue to insist otherwise, using all capital letters, without addressing those examples, or the aforementioned verses, might suggest the general brainwashing of society since people are born re concepts like LFW and responsibility. Then when they come to the Bible the lifetime of propaganda that has been drilled into them is the specs through which they read such illusions into the Scriptures. After all, the same illusion is with all humans every day of their lives, along with other illusions in the physical world.
“An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. Though illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion
“Free will could all be an illusion, scientists suggest after study shows choice may just be brain tricking itself”
independent.co.uk/news/scien … 08181.html
blogs.scientificamerican.com/mi … free-will/
Before i could respond to that, i’d first need a definition of the meaning of the words “cancell out Jesus’ will”. BTW i have nowhere said that Jesus didn’t have a will. Even little girls and dogs have a will. In fact, they all have free will. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they are free from influences or causation or determinism.
Just quoting those verses did nothing to answer the likes of Josh 24:15 at all. Those verses were entirely another issue and circumstance; totally unrelated.
Read verses 19-22 from Joshua and you’ll see they were fully accountable for their actions, and thus said consequences, based on their testimony, i.e., “witnesses against yourselves.”
I’m not saying the likes of “influences or causation or determinism” aren’t factors, of course they are, however, as you just agreed… “In fact, they all have free will” — where then is the quibble?
What I meant by… “NONE of that rules nor cancels out Jesus’ will” is simply that like all of us Jesus had freewill — he chose to submit to the Father — it’s called obedience.
I said that God would tell us who is right - at the end of time. This might be sooner then we think
The man whose biblical doomsday claim has some nervously eyeing Sept. 23
Traditional Calvinists do reconcile free will and determination, via the Biblical passages - describing God’s sovereign… See gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html. Not that I agree with them - mind you.
Since someone brought up string theory, in a passing comment here. I’ll share today’s Quora question. And corresponding good answer, from
Dori Reichmann, PhD in physics (String theory).
What are the best arguments against string theory?
Let me post this question. And hopefully - it will be answered - before God tells us on Sept 23 or thereafter. Hypothetically, if I were to embrace Calvinism…Then why shouldn’t I side, with the Compatibilism majority viewpoint - over the no-free-will, minority viewpoint?
yet another futurist… bring it on 
He isn’t (by His own choice). If God were in command of everything, including the wills and desires of man, then He would be an ogre—commanding the wills and desires of some men to rape and torture to death little girls. But God doesn’t do that. God is the personification of LOVE. All such evil acts have their origin in the desires of evil men; God has nothing to do with those desires.
Man was created in the image of God. God has free will. Therefore man (the image of God) also has free will.
The Calvinist would say those verses - trumped - your reading of Joshua 24:15. The foggy is to be interpreted in light of what is clear in the Scriptures. In general the NT, as opposed to the OT, is where you’re more likely to find the latter. The Determinist might add that all you did was basically quote the verse & then scream freewill, freewill, freewill.
You did not choose me, but I chose you (Jn.15:16a)
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (Rom.3:11)
Of course they were witnesses to what was just said & agreed upon. After all, they were there. So? Knowledge is being given to them in the words “witnesses against yourself” because imparting knowledge is part of the work of the Potter in the lives of those who are His clay. There is no need to imagine from those words that they had an imaginary thing called LFW. Though such imaginations are how life has brainwashed us from birth every day of our lives.
If a dog disobeys i can scold, discipline, punish him. That might look to someone like i’m holding the dog accountable or responsible for his actions, but they would be wrong. I’m simply correcting or training him. There is no implication that the dog has Libertarian Free Will (LFW).
The dog example given to you in another post already explained that:
Set a dog full of urine in front of two trees (tree A & tree B) and it will make its choice between the two which to urinate on. You could even call that a free will choice. After all, you didn’t drag the dog over to tree A and hold it there till it urinated. In which case the dog’s choice between two trees to urinate on would have been taken away. And it would have been compelled, contrained or forced to urinate at tree A. In the one case the dog has the free will to choose between the two trees. In the other case he can only choose tree A. Even though animals make choices and free will decisions, they don’t have Libertarian Free Will (LFW). theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will
Similarly the Scriptures state at Philemon 14:
but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.(NASB)
But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. (NIV)
Which leads back to the question if things like obedience, faith/belief, repentance are of a thing that is alleged to exist, namely man’s LFW. Or are they rather granted by irresistible grace as gifts by God, a work of God, not of ourselves, so that boasting is ruled out, to those who are chosen, elected, ordained to believe & repent, & predestined to such. IOW all those verses posted previously by myself & Horan.
In the book of Job God gave Satan permission to destroy Job’s life, family, wealth and health. This was the same as if God Himself did it.
1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. 2And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 3And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. 4And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. 5But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. 6And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
7So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. 8And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.
9Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. 10But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
God’s prophetic word re the curse was later fulfilled & brought Him glory as well as teaching man regarding His Deity.
Wonderful logic. You’ve demonstrated that you know exactly. precisely what being created in the image of God means. God is omniscient; therefore man (the image of God) is also omniscient. That’s not very convincing, is it? Have you done a search for biblical references indicating that God creates evil? It’s overwhelming. Bad logic and mere opinion don’t trump scripture.
Origen… it’s ok to be honest and completely own this yourself not putting it ‘out there’ in terms of “the Calvinist would say…” or “the Determinist might add…” — YOU in fact are saying these things, so own it.
Having said that… there is nothing “foggy” about Josh 24:15, it is crystal clear, obvious and logical; there is no “oh crap, what does he mean” — Joshua’s audience knew exactly what he was saying and what he meant — hence their response as per the text i.e., context. You simply need to muddy this for no other reason than the presuppositions you bring to and then summarily impose upon the text. From an honest reading of the text this is just not necessary.
This seems to be your main default position i.e., to fall back on this false and introduced notion of “libertarianism” to freewill — WHY? You have already agreed that “In fact, they all have free will” and I agree… they all have freewill. Your only controversy is with as you put it the… “imaginary thing called LFW” and “There is no need to imagine from those words that they had an imaginary thing called LFW.” Exactly, and yet YOU’RE the one who keeps running with this imagined “libertarian” notion. I simply agree with your basic confession with regards to humanity that… “In fact, they all have free will”.
I’m NOT alleging LFW you keep doing that… I’m simply agreeing with biblical freewill — something you yourself actually admitted is true; that’s all I’m rolling with and the likes of Josh 24:15 and others bears this out and are not supposedly trumped by other texts… I’d suggest your so-called reading of other texts might be somewhat suspect instead.