It's everywhere. You have said over and over again that God has changed His mind and gone in new directions based on the decisions of men (i.e. the Jews failed and so God then turned to the Gentiles, etc.). In addition, the Church holds that references to predestination in scriptures all mean that God foresees who will accept Him, and then declares that they are the elect. Man leads and God follows. Further, your Church claims that your clergy and your clergy alone can request that God do certain things and God will ALWAYS do those things EVEN IF the priest is unworthy (supernatural powers). I can't ask God to enter another person with any full expectation that God will follow my lead, but your clergy claims exactly that ability, etc.
The Church teaches that God gave man (limited) freedom to use (in His likeness) in exercising dominion over earth (in His image), not to "thwart" God.
According to your Church, every single time a person does not choose God, he thwarts God's will. You can't have it both ways. Either man is free to thwart God's will or he isn't. Your side says man is free to determine his own destiny. Therefore, he must be free to control whether God gets what He says He wants.
I don't mean this in hyperbole. I don't think your side believes that man is more powerful than God. I think your side believes that God has relinquished sufficient power to men such that God will follow where man leads Him on certain issues, very important ones, and that you believe God says that is just fine with Him. God creates everything, but He has decided to pass the buck on the decision of who will enter Heaven to be with Him forever. According to the Church, God believes that it should be man who makes that decision, and God will submit to whatever will that is.
It's interesting that this comes up as some are questioning A-G's claim (if such it be) to be speaking in or for the Spirit.
I'm sure A-G would not be claiming "supernatural powers" for herself but would rather say something like the gift was God's to give and for reasons best known to HImself He'd given it to her, at least for now.
I've heard plenty of guys, including Jimmy Swaggart, talk about "my ministry". It's dangerous run of phrase because it can lead us to think that our call is something of ours, belinging to US, not something we owe God. I suppose some of our clergy think '"->I<- have supernatural powers!" But when I thought I was a priest I thought of myself what I now think of the RC (and orthodox) clergy, that what they have is God's promise, and nothing of their own.
Again the notion of "Apostolicity", of agency and delegation and deputization, all those concepts hover around the question of the charisms of the clergy.
Sure, it amounts to ALMOST the same thing "on the ground", but I think the difference is important. The minister who thinks of the ministry as "his" is in trouble. You remember when Swaggart's church yanked his "commission", and he said he wasn't going to quite because "his ministry" was too important? I trembled for him then.
If you read our Mass or Baptismal prayers, the language is not, "Hold my beer and watch this!" but a language of pleading, of NOT acting like we take God's promises (as we think of them) for granted.
According to your Church, every single time a person does not choose God, he thwarts God's will. You can't have it both ways. Either man is free to thwart God's will or he isn't.If I think of God as in time, I think of Him saying,"Well it certainly is a good thing that an evening is as a thousand years because I've got to come up with a new way to snag Dawg."
But I don't much think of Him as in time.
I freely confess that this is borderline senseless babbling. But I'm trying to deny the kind of "either/or" that you are presenting.
What do you all make of Jacob wrassling the angel?