John Piper seems partial to the teaching, he explains it in terms of glorification, and I suppose he must, so that he does not draw fire from fellow evangelicals, but neither does he discount it and neither does he try to discredit early church fathers like Athanasius (like Ohio has):
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
Athanasius has helped me go deeper here by unsettling me.
His language of deification forces me to think more deeply and worship more profoundly
I am thankful to God that I did not run away from the word “deification” in Athanasius. There is here “a grace the magnitude of which our minds can never fully grasp.”49 Thank you, Athanasius. And thank you, Father. And thank you, Holy Spirit. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages...ng-for-our-all
I don't know if it is poor editing or intentional, but what surprised me was his last sentence which seems as if he is praying to Athanasius to thank him.
Piper's words reflects the problem that many evangelicals face - an apparent inner conflict over accepting Athanasius sometimes but not at other times. A hesitation to accept the early fathers with open arms, even though they stand upon and declare the orthodoxy of their doctrines, established centuries ago. Athanasius is too orthodox and important to all Christians to be declared an absolute heretic, so Piper must somehow explain Athanasius in light of evangelical doctrine. Which is a shame, because it should be the other way around - evangelical doctrine should be willing to adapt to the wisdom of the early church theologians, to bring it back in line with what almost all Christians believed in the past, including Luther and Calvin, and CS Lewis.