Unknown Warrior May Be In Hell

The Principal Defence Chaplain Julian Wagg admits that the Unknown Warrior may not have gone to heaven. In a telephone interview on Feb. 8, the principal defence chaplain Julian Wagg reluctantly admitted that the Unknown Soldier may not have gone to heaven at all if he had not been baptised and affiliated with a church.

The necessary implication with that admission is that the soldier may have gone to hell instead. This is a surprising though refreshingly honest admission given the usual universalistic beliefs of the prominent churchmen (usually Anglican) who administer the public religion for the neo-pagan Labour government.

We would like to commend the chaplain for this admission, but would like him to clarify this for the rest of New Zealand, because undoubtedly New Zealanders got the impression from the words he used during the ceremony that the soldier was a Christian and would indeed be in heaven. Chaplain Wagg has also asked me to send in some written questions which he said he might answer. I place those questions at the bottom of this essay..

The text of the service when the Unknown Warrior was laid to rest was read by chaplain Wagg and included a number of very strong statements that implied that this soldier in fact did go to heaven. This concerns me as a Christian minister, because the last impression we want to give people is that there is some automatic path to heaven irrespective of one’s beliefs, whether you die fighting for your country or not. In the committal service chaplain Wagg prayed: “O God, through whose mercy the souls of the faithful are at rest, bless this grave”. Plainly this implies that the soldier is a believer for that is what the “faithful” terminology means. We should also enquire just how one blesses a grave. To bless means to make happy; so it is beyond me how one makes a hole in the ground happy.

But the chaplain undoubtedly means ‘God, make the person in the grave happy’. This sounds suspiciously like the distinctly un-Protestant practice of praying for the dead. The prayer continues in this vein that God will now do something for a soldier who has been dead now for over 85 years; namely that the Lord will look kindly on the grave and ensure that the warrior rests in peace – in other words that he will reside in heaven. One has to wonder where he has been all that time if he did not go to heaven 85 years ago. If he did go to heaven when he died, then why is the chaplain muttering this prayer?

“It was you O God, who established the earth, created the heavens and fixed the stars in their course. It was you who rescued the human family made prisoner by the snare of death, through the pouring of healing water. O Lord look kindly on this grave that our Unknown Warrior may rest here in peace”.

Chaplain Wagg says that the “healing water” he mentions is a baptismal motif. (We must assume that he is appealing to the heretical high-church Anglican theory of baptismal regeneration). But it must be asked why does the chaplain affirm that this dead soldier has been rescued from death through “the pouring of healing water”? Wagg’s response is to appeal to statistical averages.

He believes that it is likely this person was baptised and affiliated to a Christian church, because he claims most soldiers were who went off to the First World War. This of course is nonsense. There is no warrant in Scripture to guess about a person’s spiritual condition. If you do not know that a person is a Christian or not, then you just do not give him a Christian burial; because you give the impression that salvation comes through waging war, a view more recently associated with Islamic terrorists and suicide bombers.

Asked whether all soldiers were cleansed by water and therefore going to heaven, Wagg said that he had to work on a presumption. When pressed initially whether he believed all soldiers went to heaven, he took the usual liberal Anglican stance: “I am not going to commit myself”, or words to that effect. Wagg continued the committal service using terminology which asserted that this person would be raised to eternal life and therefore to the permanent citizenship of heaven.

‘“Give rest, O Lord, to your servant with your saints: where sorrow and pain are no more: Neither sighing, but everlasting life. You only are immortal, Creator and maker of humankind: and we are mortal, formed of the earth, and unto earth we shall return: for so you did ordain, When you created us saying, “Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return”’. We have entrusted our Unknown Warrior to God’s merciful keeping, and now we enter these remains to be buried, earth to earth ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in the sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life?” The latter phrase about dust and ashes comes from the Anglican prayer book.

I asked the chaplain about his statement concerning the resurrection. I gave him the example of two men who were not affiliated to a church or necessarily baptised and he agreed those people would not then be cleansed by water, implying that they would not go to heaven. He commented along these lines: “It is a difficult situation, No one knows his name or family, but I have to work on some presumption”. When I pressed him again whether this person might not rise to eternal life, Wagg answered “yes”. Of course, he meant if the soldier had not experienced regeneration, which is what baptism signifies, his sins would not have been forgiven and he would not rise to eternal life.

It is refreshing that the chaplain does make a distinction between Christians and non-Christians even if he is very wary in committing himself over such a distinction. Still, having made this admission to me, we do hope that he will now have the courage to admit that his participation in the public religion (which was ultimately requested by his political masters the neo-pagan Labour government) was not meant to imply that this soldier buried in Wellington was necessarily going to heaven, just because he happened to be a dead soldier.

Finally, it appears that the God the chaplain prays to is indeed the God of the Bible, for he refers to both the Old and New Testaments. He quotes words from Gen 3:19 in the ceremony and his reference to the New Testament ordinance of baptism, as well as the hope of the resurrection are distinctly New Testament Christian ideas. Still, we have to be sceptical, because chaplain Wagg fails to mention or refer to Jesus Christ at all in the ceremony – a glaring omission.

Therefore, there is enough ambiguity in this burial service to require that the chaplain reassure New Zealanders that no one attains to eternal life without a living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He must do this, because the service he participated in and led gave the distinct impression that salvation is promised to all irrespective of their belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Questions for the chaplain: Who required you to use the words you used at the committal service, and were they approved by Helen Clerk or any other member of her government? When you talk about “healing waters”, which you tell me refer to baptism, are you referring to Christian baptism?

What do the words “O God, through whose mercy the souls of the faithful are at rest” mean?

Why do you not mention or pray in the name of Jesus Christ, which is the usual practice in Christian services?

Did anyone ask you to leave out Christ’s name? If not (and it was your personal decision) why did you leave His name out of this ceremony? If this was not a Christian service, then what religion did you represent?

Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe that Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Atheists go to heaven without believing in Christ as the Messiah and Saviour?

Will you admit publicly that no soldier, including the Unknown Soldier, goes to heaven without a genuine faith in Christ?

Did the Prime Minister approve your part of the service, including the terminology you used?

Can you explain, as an ordained clergyman working for the New Zealand government, why the Prime Minister Helen Clark refuses to allow “grace” to be said in public functions, but is quite happy for you to give the impression that dead soldiers go to heaven without Christ?

Now hold on a minute.

"God ordains all things. Praying does not change his mind. Yet we in hope pray that he has already willed things to be. Thus, it is virtuous to pray in the reasonable expectation that the person was christian, even if we cannot be 100% sure. Just like we would pray for someone we knew had been Christian, without being 100% sure he had not apostasized."

There are examples where God changed His mind, relented as it were. If what you say is true then God would be double minded. Even worse , if that is true, the statement would make God the author of evil. Since He ordained everything that would and will happen the He can not say to anyone they have failed and cast them into Hell. Neither can He say Well done my good and faithful servant, because that would also be a lie since no man would have free will to choose to serve or not. This makes Your second sentence totally null.
Even worse, it makes the sacrifice of Jesus nothing more than symbolic at best, and useless in fact.

Speaking of your last sentence. Praying for the dead may make you(generic use) feel better, but praying for the dead seems to be a useless activity otherwise. After all, they have finished their journey and have received their reward, Heaven or Hell. But since God has ordained their fate they couldn't very well be apostate, anymore than they could be a good and faithful servant.

God is bigger than organized religion.

Witout a doubt, and I am thankful for that.

We all have to find our way to Him, but the path we take is up to us.

Sounds good to my itching ears!... I plan to axe murder nice families until I "find" him... since it's up to me and all. (psssst - It's up to Him not us)

And it isn't heaven if Dogs aren't there.

I know I'm being a bit rough here, but this is what one gets when theology is based on strong desire, animated movies or old Twilight Zone episodes.

"If what you say is true then God would be double minded."

How does that follow from an assertion that God DOESN'T change his mind? To assert that God changes his mind because we pray is to assert that we surprised an omniscient being by praying. He knew we would pray, and planned to fulfill our prayers.

"Even worse , if that is true, the statement would make God the author of evil."

Again, that doesn't follow. There's a difference between permitting and directly causing. But God turns all things to good, and destroys evil. See your forcing a dichotomy because you're viewing God as subject to time. Since God is the author of time, he can give us free will, and yet plan the universe around our salvation. God allowed evil because he knew he would send his only Son to restore good, hence, "O Necessary fault of Adam, which hath gained for us a redeemer."

"Praying for the dead may make you(generic use) feel better, but praying for the dead seems to be a useless activity otherwise. After all, they have finished their journey and have received their reward, Heaven or Hell."

Again, you can pray that they have gone to Heaven. Besides, your point only holds up if you use Martin Luther's censored version of the bible. Elsewise, you'd know from Maccabees that the Spirit of God returned to the temple when the Jewish warriors offered expiation for the souls of their departed. And yes, God's spirit did dwell in the temple at the time of Jesus; that's why when Jesus died, the altar was cleaved and the curtains torn: that was the Spirit of God leaving the temple.

(Mr. Luther, It's really no fair to argue to sola scriptura if you decide you're going to throw out the stuff that doesn't agree with you.)

God is bigger than organized religion.

True!

We all have to find our way to Him,

True!

but the path we take is up to us

Not true! (but you were doing so well.)

The bible tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and NO ONE comes to the Father except by Him (Jesus)

All roads to heaven run through Jesus and all roads that don't run through Jesus lead to hell

What does the honoring of an Unknown Soldier have to do with the issue of that soldier's salvation? The concept of the Unknown Soldier is to honor a soldier who died for his country, but was anonymous because his remains could not be identified. Honoring wartime heroism in this manner is an appropriate gesture for a nation that calls upon young men to give, in Lincoln's words, the last full measure of devotion. Whether the soldier responded to the Gospel call and knew Jesus Christ as his Savior, is not the concern in this instance. Nor is any other religious formula.

Many Christians respect and admire the contributions made to human knowledge or the deeds of heroism of non-Christians, even though, by the tenets of evangelical Christian theology, these people would not have been saved. The same thing can be said in instances where nothing is known about a fallen, brave soldier whose name is known to none but God.

"How does that follow from an assertion that God DOESN'T change his mind? To assert that God changes his mind because we pray is to assert that we surprised an omniscient being by praying. He knew we would pray, and planned to fulfill our prayers."

First, you have based your argument, and your immortal soul, on circular reasoning.
Second, I asserted no such thing. God Himself said that He would change His mind, Nineveh ring a bell?

"Again, that doesn't follow. There's a difference between permitting and directly causing."

There is a difference between an act predestined, such as the birth, sinless life, Crucifixion and the raising from the dead of Jesus and a act permitted, such as the stoning of Stephen.

" But God turns all things to good, and destroys evil."

God works all things together for the good of those that love Him. That doesn't mean there isn't evil. Evil is not destroyed now, only at the end.

"See your forcing a dichotomy because you're viewing God as subject to time. Since God is the author of time, he can give us free will, and yet plan the universe around our salvation."

That statement is asinine(look it up)
It has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation and it never will.

" God allowed evil because he knew he would send his only Son to restore good, hence, "O Necessary fault of Adam, which hath gained for us a redeemer."

God allowed evil because He gave us and the Angles free will to choose. He did not allow evil in order to sacrifice his Son for our redemption. Another fine example of circular reasoning on your part.
Doesn't it make more sense to not allow evil in the first place and save all of this trouble?

"Again, you can pray that they have gone to Heaven."

A totally useless waste of time. Pray for the living, let the dead bury the dead.

"Besides, your point only holds up if you use Martin Luther's censored version of the bible. Elsewise, you'd know from Maccabees that the Spirit of God returned to the temple when the Jewish warriors offered expiation for the souls of their departed."

The Maccabees have even less Gospel than does the book of James. The Maccabees are pure history, just like Josephus.

"And yes, God's spirit did dwell in the temple at the time of Jesus; that's why when Jesus died, the altar was cleaved and the curtains torn: that was the Spirit of God leaving the temple."

1 out of 100 ain't good. But tell me, what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

"(Mr. Luther, It's really no fair to argue to sola scriptura if you decide you're going to throw out the stuff that doesn't agree with you.)"

Tell you what Padre, here a couple things that do agree with me.
The scripture which says "let each man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling" and "Choose this day whom you will serve.."

Now you tell me how those two things can be reconciled with your premise.

BTW, Calling me Mr.Luther isn't an insult as you intended.
You would do well reading Luther's works, if for no other reason than "know your enemy".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.