Piper's article on Athanasius

[AndOne]

Hey ya'll - would you mind taking a look at the following artice on Athanasius by John Piper - it is here:

www.desiringgod.org/library/biographies/2005_athanasius.html

I really enjoyed the article but when I got to page 14 some red flags went up when I got to section # 7 entitled: "Finally, we must not assume that old books, which say some startling things, are necessarily wrong, but may in fact have something glorious to teach us that we never dreamed."

I am hoping to see what some of your reactions are to this section. I really love Piper - but for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on - somethin here doesn't seem right. Please take a look when you get some time and let me know what you think.

 

[AndOne]

Okay - This is a long article - so I understand why I've gotten no takers on this one yet. Although I really don't want to take anything out of context with what John Piper is trying to say - I'll go ahead and list some actual quotes from the article that caused me concern - in hopes that it may generate some discussion and perhaps cause someone to speak here to alleviate my concerns.

Here are some excerpts that raised flags with me:

"For example, Aranasius says some startling things about human deification that we would probably never say. Is that because one of us is wrong? Or is it because the language and the categories of thought that he uses are so different from ours that we have to get inside his head before we make judgements about the truth of what he says? And might we discover something great by this effort to see what he saw?"

Those statements refer to the following quotes from Athanasius"

"[The Son] was made man that we might might be made God (theopoi th men)."

and

"He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us."

The whole deification part is what has my head spinning here. There is another quote from Athanasius later in the article that says this:

"...The Son is the Father in one way, and we become Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we."

So am I reading too much into this - or do you think my concerns are valid? Any comments would be most appreciated...

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Okay - This is a long article - so I understand why I've gotten no takers on this one yet. Although I really don't want to take anything out of context with what John Piper is trying to say - I'll go ahead and list some actual quotes from the article that caused me concern - in hopes that it may generate some discussion and perhaps cause someone to speak here to alleviate my concerns.

Here are some excerpts that raised flags with me:

"For example, Aranasius says some startling things about human deification that we would probably never say. Is that because one of us is wrong? Or is it because the language and the categories of thought that he uses are so different from ours that we have to get inside his head before we make judgements about the truth of what he says? And might we discover something great by this effort to see what he saw?"

Those statements refer to the following quotes from Athanasius"

"[The Son] was made man that we might might be made God (theopoi th men)."

and

"He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us."

The whole deification part is what has my head spinning here. There is another quote from Athanasius later in the article that says this:

"...The Son is the Father in one way, and we become Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we."

So am I reading too much into this - or do you think my concerns are valid? Any comments would be most appreciated...

Hello Behe’s boy,

A number of Years ago I read Athanasius’ wonderful work On the Incarnation. It is a great read. It is in this work that we find the first quote that you mention above.

If you read Athanasius’ works and his history you will see that he is sound. Yes he does us terms/phrases that we are uncomfortable with, but so do the Scriptures. In John 10 34-35 we read "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..."
Certainly the Scriptures don’t teach that we become god’s (though Mormons believe they do). The terms Athanasius uses are not restricted to him. They are used by other sound Church Fathers. We have to read them, like everything else in context. Their context was radically different from our own they are comfortable with phrases that we are not and we uses phrases that they would have problems with.

Athanasius is solid. He was the bulwark at Nicea, and when it seemed that all the Church had bowed to the Arian emperors that followed Constantine, Athanasius would not bend and suffered greatly for that. This is why where the famous saying "Athanasius contra mundum" (Athanasius against the world) came from.

Coram Deo,
Kenith
PS. Read CS Lewis’ introduction to De Incarnatione Verbi Dei and then read Athanasius. It is worth your time.

 

[Blackhawk]

I have read On the Incarnation and other works by him and he is very sound. In fact I learned much from him. I think what Athanasius means by us being defied is that there will be a time when we will no longer be corruptible and prone to decay and death. God will make us like Christ who is incorruptible. It is not that we become gods but that we are no longer bound to suffering, death, and decay that comes from sin. We will be glorified.

 

[Imblessed]

I have read On the Incarnation and other works by him and he is very sound. In fact I learned much from him. I think what Athanasius means by us being defied is that there will be a time when we will no longer be corruptible and prone to decay and death. God will make us like Christ who is incorruptible. It is not that we become gods but that we are no longer bound to suffering, death, and decay that comes from sin. We will be glorified.

I would say that this is pretty likely, although I haven't read the works, but from, the quotes shown, it seems like this is the most likely way to understand what he is saying.
I wouldn't be suprised if that was a common way of saying that we would become glorified--but nowadays, it takes you right to mormon theology, and humanism...so it's hard to separate it.

Kind of like how saying thee and thou is formal today, but back in the 1600's it was considered too personal to use between the "classes". The Quakers refused to "classify" anyone, so they would use these terms, thee and thou, and others to keep everyone on the same page so to speak. Interesting how the languages change.......