On the 11th July 2016 episode of the Dividing Line (was listening as White has a forthcoming debate on LDS Christology with Alma Allred), James White argued that Heb 7:24 teaches that the only Jesus holds the Melchizedek Priesthood.. The text in question is:
But Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. (1995 NASB)
The term translated as “permanently” is απαραβατον, the accusative form of απαραβατος. White in this episode (as he did in his Letters to a Mormon Elder [refuted by Russell McGregor and Kerry Shirts in Letters to an Anti-Mormon]), as well as other Protestant critics of the LDS Church, argue that this term means “without successors,” and that only Jesus holds this priesthood according to the author of Hebrews. However, White, as he is on many issues, is way to the left of field. Modern scholarship refutes this understanding of the term.
For instance, on page 53 of Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, S.V. απαραβατος:
In P Ryl II. 6518 (B.C. 67?—in any case Ptol.) a judgement ends with καὶ τἄλλα τὰ δι᾽ αὐτῆ[ς δι]ωρισμένα μένειν κύρια καὶ ἀπαράβατα, “valid and inviolate” (Edd.). The legal formula, thus established for an early period, survives six centuries later in P Grenf I. 607 (A.D. 581) ἀπαραβάτῳ πράσει: “inviolable” must be the sense, though the words follow a hiatus. Another example, also vi/A.D., is in P Lond 101512 (= III. p. 257) ἄτρωτα καὶ ἀσάλευτα καὶ ἀπαράβατας …, a contract for the surrender of property. See also P Catt rectov. 19 (ii/A.D.) (= Chrest. II. p. 422) ἔνια ἀπαράβατά ἐστιν, “es gibt Dinge, an denen sich nichts ändern lässt” (Ed.). It is clear that the technical use, compared with the late literary (ap. Lobeck Phryn. p. 313), constitutes a very strong case against the rendering “not transferable”. Phrynichus himself prescribed ἀπαραίτητος: what sense that would have made in Heb 724 passes comprehension. Vettius Valens has the adverb five times (see index), always as “validly” or “inevitably.” It occurs in P Strass I. 4023 (A.D. 569), rendered “unverbrüchlich” (Ed.).
In another scholarly lexicon, we read:
απαραβατος
This is a rare word found only in later Gk. Only very infrequently does it have the sense of "inviolable." Epict. Enoch .. 51:2 νομος απαραβατος also P. Ryl., II. 65 18: P. Grenf., I. 60, 7. its usual sense is "unchangeable," "immutable." In this sense fate is said to be unconditionally fixed and subject to no change or alteration. Plut. De Fato 1 (II.568d): η ειμαρμενη λογοσ θειος απαρβατος δι' αιτιαν ανεμποδιστον; De Plactis Philosophorum. I. 28,4 (II, 885b): οι Στωικοι ειρμον αιτιων, τουτεστι ταξιν και επιουνδεσιν απαραβατον; M. Ant., XII, 14, 1: αναγκη ειμαρμενης και απαραβατος ταξις . . . In the sense "unchangeable" the word is a tt. in law. A judgment from the 1st cent. A.D. (P. Ryl., II, 65, 18) ends with the words: και ταλλα τα δι' αυτη[ς δι]ωρισμενα μενειν και απαραβατα ("valid and unalterable") . . . Hb. 7:24 says of Christ that because He remains to eternity He has an unchangeable and imperishable priesthood. Instead of the pass. "unchangeable" many expositors suggest the act. sense "which cannot be transferred to another": "Christ has a priesthood which cannot be transferred to anyone else." This is a natural interpretation and yields a good sense, but it does not really fit the context. We should keep to the rendering "unchangeable," the more so as the act. sense is not attested elsewhere. (Gerhard Kittell and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [10 vols.: trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1967], 5:742-43)
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), the term is defined thusly (emphasis added):
804 ἀπαράβατος
• ἀπαράβατος, ον (s. παραβαίνω; belonging to later Gk. [Phryn. 313 Lob.]; not LXX) Hb 7:24 usu. interpr. ‘without a successor’. But this mng. is found nowhere else. ἀ. rather has the sense permanent, unchangeable (Stoic. II 266, 1; 293, 31 [Chrysipp.]; Plut., Mor. 410f; 745d; Epict. 2, 15, 1, Ench. 51, 2; Herm. Wr. fgm. XXIII, 48 [494, 26 Sc.], fgm. XXIV, 1; Philo, Aet. M. 112; Jos., Ant. 18, 266, C. Ap. 2, 293; Just., A I, 43, 7; as legal t.t. over a long period of time in pap: PRyl 65, 18 [I BC]; PLond III, 1015, 12 p. 257 [VI AD] ἄτρωτα καὶ ἀσάλευτα καὶ ἀπαράβατα; Mitt-Wilck. II /2, 372 V, 19; PEllingworth, JSNT 23 ’85, 125f).—M-M. TW. Spicq.—DELG s.v. βαίνω.
One recent Protestant commentator who, while agreeing with White that only Jesus holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, rejects White's antiquated understanding of απαραβατος:
[Heb 7:24] is straightforward in its meaning, asserting Jesus has a permanent, perpetual, unchanging priesthood because he “lives for ever.” When the adjective aparabaton, “permanent,” is translated attributively, as in the NIV, KJV, and a few other translations, it is a violation of Greek grammar. The adverbial rendering as in the NASB is also problematic. It is better to take the adjective in a predicate relationship to the noun, as “Jesus has the priesthood (and it is) permanent,” or as a relative clause, “a priesthood which is permanent.” (David L. Allen, Hebrews [vol. 35 The New American Commentary; Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010], 428)
Of course, one could ask, "If Jesus is the only holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, what about Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-19; cf. Psa 110:4)?" While White does not discuss it in this particular episode of his webcast, he has in the past stated that it is possible that Melchizedek is a "Christophany" (Old Testament manifestation of the premortal Jesus [e.g., in his debate on Temples/Priesthood against Richard Hopkins]). Within some (mainly Protestant) circles, there is the theory that the figure of Melchizedek in Gen 14:18 is none other than the premortal Jesus; in other words, Melchizedek represents an Old Testament “Christophany.” However, as with his interpretation of Heb 10:29, such is eisegesis to the nth degree.
Interestingly, one of, if not the earliest, individuals to make this association was Ambrose of Milan However, the underlying theological reasons why Ambrose made this association would be anathema to White et al! Why? Ambrose, as all commentators on his theology of the Eucharist would agree, held that the Eucharist was a sacrifice and that Christ was substantially present in the sacrifice. The association of Jesus with the Melchizedek was tied into the sacrifice of the New Covenant (the “Mass” in Catholic circles) being prefigured by the sacrifice of Melchizedek whom offered bread and wine in Gen 14:18 (cf. Exposition of the Christian Faith XI).
Latter-day Saints have never claimed that Melchizedek and Jesus are one and the same person, and for good reason—there is no Scriptural justification for this identification. Within uniquely LDS scriptural texts, the person of Melchizedek and Jesus are differentiated from one another (Alma 13 and D&C 107 are pretty explicit in this). Furthermore, even limiting us to the Bible, the epistle to the Hebrews itself differentiates between Melchizedek and Jesus wherein an identification of persons would violate the law of the Identity of Indiscernibles (e.g. Heb 7:3, 15). As the following quote from Jesuit scholar, Albert Vanhoye in his (excellent) commentary on Hebrews states correctly, the association of Melchizedek and Jesus in Hebrews is not an identification of persons, but one of prefiguration:
[The figure of Melchizedek in Psa 110] corresponds . . .to an image of the Son of God, for the Son of God has “neither beginning of days, nor end of life,” and only the Son of God could become “priest for ever.” With all these traits, the biblical image of Melchisedek constitutes a prefiguration of the glorified Christ, one of God and priest for ever. Only a prefiguration, because Melchisedek was not really Son of God, nor priest for ever; he was only “made like the Son of God” by the way he is represented in the text of Genesis, and not in reality. Likewise, his priesthood is not truly eternal but has only, in the text of Genesis, an appearance which has something of eternity about it. To express this important nuance, the author avoids using, concerning Melchisedek, the expression of the psalm, “for ever,” but uses an expression with a weaker sense, which can be translated as “continually” or “in perpetuity.” Of whom exactly, is Melchisedek a prefiguration? He is not a prefiguration of the Son of God before the incarnation, for the latter is not “without father,” he has God as father, and he is not a priest, for he lacks the fraternal link with mankind. Nor is Melchisedek a prefiguration of the incarnate Son of God and living his earthly life, because then he is not “without mother.,” he is the son of Mary; he is not “without genealogy,” being of the tribe of Juda. And he has not yet been proclaimed priest by God. Melchisedek is the prefiguration of the risen Christ, for the resurrection is a new creation, in which neither human father, nor human mother, nor genealogy have any part. The human nature of the risen Christ is the “the greater and more prefect tent, not made by hand of man, that is to say not of this creation” (Heb 9:11) by means of which Christ entered into intimacy with God and ran into God’s eternity. In the resurrection, the human nature of Jesus received the fullness of filial glory but that glory does not break the links of Christ with mankind, for it is through the complete fraternal solidarity with them that it was obtained (see Heb 2:9-18). It follows that the glorified Christ, Son of God and brother of mankind, is “priest for ever.” That is what the author sees prefigured in the biblical image of the perpetual priesthood of Melchisedek. (Albert Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews [Miami: Convivium Press, 2011], 209-10)
Much more could be said on this, but White is clearly way to the left of field on the topic of the Melchizedek Priesthood in both Heb 7:24 and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For more, see my page, The LDS Priesthood: Resource Page for posts defending the priesthoods within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Intercession of Jesus
White also brings up the issue of the intercession of Christ in Heb 7:25. However, this is something that actually refutes, not supports, his Reformed soteriology.
White also brings up the issue of the intercession of Christ in Heb 7:25. However, this is something that actually refutes, not supports, his Reformed soteriology.
The New Testament speaks of the ongoing intercessory work of Christ before the Father and presents Christ as being a present atonement for sin as a result (e.g., Rom 8:34; Heb 2:17; 7:24-25; 8:1, 3; 1 John 2:1-2; Rev 5:5-6). The intercessory work of Christ is problematic to the Penal Substitution model of atonement. As Evangelical scholar, Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, in his excellent book, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 249 n. 13 wrote:
To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal substitution. According to penal substitution, the primary purpose and effect of the death of Jesus was to propitiate the wrath of God on account of the sins of humanity. As it is written elsewhere, because Christ is “a priest forever” in heaven, he “always lives to make intercession” and is thus “able for all time to save those who approach God through him” (Heb 7:24-25). Heavenly intercession on our behalf is thus the ongoing vocation of the risen and ascended Christ. So, if the purpose and effect of the Son's intercession is to propitiate the Father's wrath, then the Son is continually doing in heaven at the throne what was to have been fully accomplished on earth at the cross. The cross would thus seem to have been ineffective, or at least incomplete, in accomplishing its primary purpose of saving humanity from divine wrath. Michael's [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it.
Many proponents of Reformed soteriology have shown to be inconsistent with respect to their views on the nature of Christ’s atoning death its relationship to intercession, as well as the salutary nature of Christ’s intercession. James White himself, for instance, once wrote the following:
He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents Himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of His people. His work of intercession, then, is based on His work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father . . . the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in His death He has taken away the sins of God’s people, and therefore, by presenting His finished work on Calvary before the Father, He assures the application of the benefits of His death to those for whom He intercedes. (James R. White, The Fatal Flaw, pp. 133-134).
Ulrich Zwingli, one of the magisterial Reformers, wrote the following on the intercessory work of Christ:
For as He [Christ] offered Himself once on the cross and again to the Father in heaven, so He won and obtained remission of sins and the joy of everlasting happiness. (The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli [trans. Macauley Jackson; 2 vols.], 2:276)
This inconsistency is also part-and-parcel of John Calvin’s soteriology as well as those who, like James White, subscribe to such a forensic model of atonement. In the book by Robert Peterson, Calvin and the Atonement, we read the following on the topic of Christ’s office of priest and work of intercession:
Salvation depends upon Christ’s highly priestly work of reconciliation . . . The second of Christ’s priestly duties is intercession. Because Jesus Christ has reconciled the Father to believers and them to him, he has opened for them a way of access to God in prayer. In the Institutes, Calvin explains that Christ’s accomplishment of reconciliation is the prerequisite for his work of intercession:
For having entered a sanctuary not made with hands, He appears before the Father’s face as our constant advocate and intercessor (Heb. 7:25; 9:11f.; Rom. 8:34). Thus He turns the Father’s eyes to His own righteousness to avert his gaze from our sins. He so reconciles the Father’s heart to us by His intercession that He prepares a way and access for us to the Father’s throne. He fills with grace and kindness the throne that for miserable sinners would otherwise have been filled with dread. (Institutes II.xvi.16)
In fact, according to Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 2:1, ‘Christ’s intercession is the continual application of His death to our salvation.’ Christ’s priestly work of reconciliation is once for all. But his high priestly function of intercession is continuous. He continually intercedes on behalf of his people before his Father’s throne. (Robert A. Peterson Sr., Calvin and the Atonement: What the renowned pastor and teacher said about the cross of Christ [Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 1999], 57-58)
On p. 58 n. 51 of ibid., we read the following:
Hoogland expresses this very well: ‘The intercession of Christ according to Calvin, is not an additional act which Christ performs in heaven, different from His death and resurrection. His intercession is the presence of His death and resurrection themselves before the Father’ (Marvin P. Hoogland, ‘Calvin’s Perspective on the Exaltation of Christ in Comparison with the Post-Reformation Doctrine of the Two States’, pp. 198f.)
As with James White (whose book was written, in part, against the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice), Calvin contradicts himself when he critiques this doctrine, one that is tied into Christ’s intercessory work being salutary (showing the inconsistent nature of such a view of atonement):
It is in the context of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice that Calvin takes great affront at the Roman Catholic mass. In the Institutes, he explains:
The sacrificial victims which were offered under the law to atone for sins were so called, not because they were capable of recovering God’s favour or wiping out iniquity, but because they prefigured a true sacrifice such as was finally accomplished in reality by Christ alone; and by him alone, because no other could have done it. And it was done but once, because the effectiveness and force of that one sacrifice accomplished by Christ are eternal, as he testified with his own voice when he said that it was done and fulfilled; that is, whatever was necessary to recover the Father’s favour, to obtain forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation—all this was performed and completed by that unique sacrifice of his. And so perfect was is that no place was left afterward for any other sacrificial victim. Therefore, I conclude that it is a most wicked infamy and unbearable blasphemy, both against Christ and against the sacrifice which he made for us through his death on the cross, for anyone to suppose that by repeating the oblation he obtains pardon for sins, appeased God, and acquires righteousness. But what else is done by performing masses except by the merit of a new oblation we are made partakers in Christ’s passion? (Institutes IV.xviii.13-14) (ibid., 98-99)
Commenting on this aforementioned passage from Calvin’s Institutes, Peterson writes:
[In Calvin’s eyes] Christ’s work was perfect and no other sacrifices are needed. Christ perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial system by offering himself on the cross. His work is sufficient to save his people from their sins. (Ibid., 99)
Further refutation of White's Calvinistic understanding of the nature of Christ's intercessory work is that of 1 John 2:1-2. 1 John 2:1-2. The ESV renders the verse as follows (emphasis added):
While much more could be said, it is clear that White is privileging his theology ahead of any sound exegesis of Heb 7:24 (putting the cart before the horse, if you will). There is nothing in this passage or related texts that is inconsistent with Latter-day Saint theology; sadly for White, his Reformed soteriology is shown to be anti-biblical yet again.
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
In this verse, John is speaking to Christian believers of his time, and states that, not only was/is Christ an atoning sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins, but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Reformed soteriology, when an individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will. However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but such sins will have to be repented of, and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is brought out when one looks at the Greek:
The phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος, which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we find in a host of biblical texts, including those previously discussed in this article. We see a very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:
And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
In this passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as) coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore, depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role, paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3), namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).
The term “he is the propitiation for our sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice (“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17, where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true believers.
1 John 1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness; verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness (i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and 10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns use indicate that the author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.
John continues by qualifying the scope of Christ’s atoning sacrifice—He is not just the propitiation for the sins of believers (“our sins”) but also but also "for the whole world." The term "whole world" translates the Greek του κοσμου. The term κοσμος in all 17 occurrences in 1 John does not have the restrictive meaning that is required by Reformed theology which states that Christ died only for the elect and makes intercession only for the elect (Limited Atonement [AKA Particular Redemption], the”L” in the TULIP):
Let us quote from some representative examples, again from the ESV, as it is a popular translation among many Reformed Protestants:
For all that is in the world (κοσμος)--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life--is not from the Father but is from the world. (1 John 2:16)
But if anyone has the world's (κοσμος) goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? (1 John 3:17)
They are from the world (κοσμος); therefore they speak from the world (κοσμος), and the world listens to them. (1 John 4:5)
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world (κοσμος). (1 John 4:14).
The latter texts are interesting as the title “Saviour” (σωτηρ) is predicated upon Jesus and His role as a Saviour is said to be for the world, not just a select few arbitrarily chosen by God in the eternal past (cf. John 4:42). Some Reformed apologists try to answer the implications of the phrase, "the whole world" by claiming that John is writing to Jewish converts to Christianity, and is simply stating that Christ has elect from among both the Jews and the Gentiles, so "the whole world" should mean "Jew and Gentile." However, such is a complete and utter stretch--for Jews, there were only two ethnic categories one belonged to; one was either a Jew or a Gentile--so everybody would be in view.
When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows that (1) Christ is a present propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not forgiven at justification, and as result (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit, and (4) Christ is the atoning sacrifice, not just for Christians, but the everybody.
John McLeod Campbell, a 19th century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution, captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:
And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a past fact. He is the propitiation. Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,” that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in original).
This is yet another text which shows, with great perspicuity, that Latter-day Saint theology is more reflective of “Biblical Christianity” than Reformed theology, which most of our Evangelical Protestant opponents subscribe to.
It should be noted that, while White harps on the issue of assurance (even engaging in eisegesis of the metaphor of Christ being an "anchor" in Heb 6:19), Calvinists are in reality basing their "assurance" of salvation in an alleged spiritual experience, coupled with a very errant theology that, in spite of all its claims, cannot offer true assurance. Note the following quotes from a work by a Protestant scholar:
It should be noted that, while White harps on the issue of assurance (even engaging in eisegesis of the metaphor of Christ being an "anchor" in Heb 6:19), Calvinists are in reality basing their "assurance" of salvation in an alleged spiritual experience, coupled with a very errant theology that, in spite of all its claims, cannot offer true assurance. Note the following quotes from a work by a Protestant scholar:
It is an extraordinary thing that Knox did not clearly realise—none of the Reformers apparently realised—that by grounding assurance on election, rather than on merit, they were only pushing the problem of assurance back one stage, and pushing it into what appeared to be an even more terrifying form. For if salvation depends on merit, and I doubt of my salvation, I can at least do something about it: I can try harder to be good. But if salvation depends on God’s election, and I doubt my election, I land in complete and hopeless paralysis. There is nothing I can do about that. If God has not elected me, what hope or help have I? Apparently none. (McEwen, Faith of John Knox, p.72, as cited by Graham Redding, Prayer and the Priesthood of Christ in the Reformed Tradition [London: T&T Clark, 2003], 117)
The Westminster [Confession of Faith] documents’ conception of God’s covenant relationship with humankind in contractual terms ultimately leads to a loss of assurance of grace and salvation. There are two striking features of the Confession’s teaching in this regard. First, it suggests that ‘infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith’ (Westminster Confession, 18.3) Second, it suggests that a true believer ‘may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be a partaker of it’ (Westminster Confession, 18.3). The qualifying assurance that true believers are ‘never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and brethren and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived’ (Westminster Confession, 18.4), does little to counterbalance the main thrust of the Confession’s teaching on the matter . . . [one may] correctly [conclude] according to this teaching it seems that a believer could die without assurance. (Redding, ibid., p. 174).
While much more could be said, it is clear that White is privileging his theology ahead of any sound exegesis of Heb 7:24 (putting the cart before the horse, if you will). There is nothing in this passage or related texts that is inconsistent with Latter-day Saint theology; sadly for White, his Reformed soteriology is shown to be anti-biblical yet again.