"Inasmuch that GOD is the God of nature, what does "supernatural" mean?"
Good question. I have long found the word 'supernatural' problematic for a
number of reasons, including the following:
1. Dividing phenomena into the categories 'natural' and 'supernatural'
often conveys the idea that God is essential to the 'supernatural,' but the
'natural' is independent of God. Or, that God is evident in the
'supernatural' but not in the 'natural.' I, for one, reject both of these
theologically offensive connotations.
2. Employing the term 'supernatural' also suggests that the world of
ordinary experience (commonly called the 'natural' world) is properly
called by the name, 'Nature.' I highly prefer to use the term 'The
Creation' as the proper name of that world. I have also suggested that, for
a Christian, the term 'creaturely science' is more appropriate than
'natural science.' In both cases, the terms 'Creation' and 'creaturely'
serve as reminders of the ultimate identity of the universe. It is that
which has being--all that it is and all that it is capable of doing--solely
as a gift from the Creator.
I think it important for Christians to use terminology that proceeds from
the fundamentals of historic Christian theology. The world of which we are
a part is not "Nature" but it is "The Creation." What the sciences have
empirical access to, and what the sciences are competent to theorize about,
is the behavior of 'creatures'--members of the Creation.
Neglecting these basic consideration has, I believe, contributed to the
"punctuated naturalism" found in many expositions of episodic
creationism--'natural' phenomena (treated, in effect, as independent of
God) are only occasionally punctuated by episodes of 'supernatural' action
(irruptive, form-imposing, divine interventions).
Howard J. Van Till