My point in the paragraph from which that citation is taken is to challenge the “reification and abstraction” that plagues theology. Positively, I am arguing that Christian theology is pervasively personal (a point stressed by Van Til and John Frame), not only in the sense that we should strive to employ personal categories when talking theologically but also in the sense that all theology involves the theologian in faithful witness or unfaithful compromise before a personal God. The phrase “nature of God” is problematic if it has the effect of seducing the theologian into thinking he’s talking about some thing called God’s “nature” rather than talking about God Himself.
Here’s the fuller quotation:
Does the phrase “nature of God” mean anything other than “God”? What is added by adding “nature”? If the phrase refers to God’s attributes, well and good, though I prefer the more personalist connotations of “attributes.” But the phrase can hint that there is some reality that we can call “nature of God” that is different from the Sovereign Person we call “God,” and that hint is dangerous and heretical if pressed. I suspect that “nature of God” is often used for rhetorical effect, since it sounds more weighty and philosophical than “God.” But that rhetorical reach is also dangerous. I suspect too, sinners being sinners, that some prefer “nature of God” to “God” (or, even more, “Yahweh”) precisely because of its de-personalizing implications, because they believe the phrase can be a shield against the righteous, personal Judge. A frail defense. Trinitarian theology forces us to refine our speaking about God in a way that highlights rather than suppresses His personality, His personal promises and demands.
Try this as a test: When you speak of your wife, or your children, or your best friend, do you talk about the “nature of Sam” or the “nature of Diane”? Wouldn’t that be downright weird? Why then does it sound normal when we talk about God? I submit that it shouldn’t. In any case, this statement from my essay has little to do with the question of how God is One.
My thinking about this statement, up till tonight when I suddenly came to my senses, demonstrates how debate poisons thinking, or at least my thinking.
I thought Peter’s response, quoted in part above, was pretty good. But someone said something tonight that made me realize that I have forgotten the obvious: It is absolutely standard in Reformed theology (and virtually all Christian theology whether Roman Catholic or otherwise) to insist that God is identical with his attributes. The fact that Peter feels a need to argue his case is evidence of a great deal of amnesia regarding traditional Reformed theology proper. Peter is saying nothing extraordinary except to speak of how our rhetoric gets in the way of what we are trying to say. The very fact that no one has pointed out that the traditional orthodox view of God radically demands exactly Peter’s formulation is itself evidence of that fact.