COCKRELL DUPLICITY LETTER
(Pertinent Letters to the Berea Baptist Banner’s duplicity, dishonesty, and cowardice.)
Berea Baptist Church, P.O. BOX 39, Mantachie, MS 38855
August 8, 1995
Dear Bro. Cockrell,
Imagine my surprise, when Don Edwards (after reading the August "Banner"), editor of the "Flaming Torch" called and asked me if I had received any response from J.C. Settlemoir, regarding my letter to him in regard to his article in the February 5, 1996 "BereaBaptist Banner"- which I had not.
Still, imagine my surprise, when I read the August 5 "Banner," in which you said Settlemoir sent "you"a response to "my” letter but did not send me a response or even a copy. Is it normal, in your circles, for someone (A) to write someone (B) and for someone (B) to answer someone (A) to someone (C)? Especially when someone (B) writes an article on ministerial honesty for your "Banner?”
Now, I sent Settlemoir the letter in a sealed envelope in care of the Banner's address, since you do not print the authors' addresses. After some time had past, having received no response, I mailed you a copy of my letter to him (I “think" I indicated that there had been no response).
I sent both articles to Don Edwards and a number of friends. After zero response fromFebruary to July from anyone, both Settlemoir's article and my response were then printed in the "Flaming Torch" and were editorialized by Don Edwards (his prerogative).
I have no problem understanding that neither you nor the "Banner" might not havehad anything to do with the lack of courtesy extended to me in the way that the response was handled. Settlemoir's intention, evidently, was to ignore me and submit his rebuttal to your periodical for publication. But the "Torch" beat him to the punch. I do have a problem with your name calling, i.e., "Ruckmanite," when there was notone reference to Dr. Peter Ruckman in my letter or articles in the "Torch.” Why don't "you" fellows stick to the issue? (Or are you all Ruckmaphobic). Should you fellows name call after Settlemoir piously complains (Feb. 5 "Banner") about (KJO)"angry faces" and "name-calling" in the very first paragraph of his anti King James article?
Still, I prefaced my letter to him with the statement, "I will not get angry or call you (Settlemoir) any names. Moreover, I neither "attacked" nor “protested” the "Banner." I merely "questioned" the article in a letter to Settlemoir. That is all! (The editorializing in the"Torch" is between Don Edwards and you.)
Now, the intention of my letter, as so stated in my letter, was to ask Settlemoir questions, using his own "Litmus test." If those questions are irrelevant, his whole article is irrelevant. My letter was intended to be the basis of subsequent letters, which never occurred through no fault of mine.
Your article "The Worth of the Word (Feb. 5th "Banner"), seems to stand in deep contrast to both you and Settlemoir's comments. It certainly sounds like "doublespeak" to me. Would you be so kind to clarify and/or define what you mean by the words and terms "Bible, Scriptures, Word, Word of God, Sword of the Spirit written Revelation in the following quotes by you in your February 5, “Banner?”
February 5, 1996 "Berean Baptist Banner"
1. "No convent/on or church has a right to impose on tests and tenets other than those written and expressed in the Bible.”
2. the term "Bible (above)?”
3. ". . . it is the Living Word of the ever-living God?”
4. “. . . some misuse the Bible?”
5. "Some may pervert the Scriptures to their own destruction?”
6. "Then go to your Bible?”
7. "Stand before the Bible like a mirror?”
8. “. . . We must use "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God' . . . ?”
9. "We can best whip the Devil with the all-prevailing weapon, "it is written?”
10. "The enemy cannot withstand the Sword . . . of the Spirit . . . ?”
11. "With it (Sword of the Spirit) in our hand, we can go forth conquering and to conquer!"?
12." . . . the Bible makes one wise unto salvation . . .?"
13. "The Bible causes one to see . . . ?”
14. "By faith in the written Word of God . . . ?”
15. "Those who would deprive the common people of the Bible . . . ?”
16. "If revelation had been left to oral transmission, it would have reached us in a distorted condition . . . Thank God for His written revelation. What would we do without God's fixed and everlasting Word?"
17. "The true Author guided its (Bible) composition with a view to instructing for all time."?
18. "The Bible does not contain some of the words of God; it is the Word of God!"?
Specifically, do you mean a certain English Bible or a certain Greek/Hebrew Bible ora mystical composite Bible of all the Bible/Scriptures/Words/ Words of God/ written revelations? Would it be too much to ask you to be specific about the name of this "Bible?”
We would also like to know if Ian Paisley to be taken at face value or as one using "doublespeak" (August 5 "Banner"- p. 145)? "Do I have God's inspired Word in my hand? Yes! The Authorized Version is a reliable and accurate translation of the verbally inspired Word of God . . . it brings me accurately and plainly the inspired Word of the Living God." Ian Paisley (Ibid.) Sincerely, Herb Evans
P.S. I do not intend to mix my response to Settlemoir with my response to you, nor do I intend to bless Settlemoir discourtesy to me by writing him directly. I will answer his powerful answers, i.e., irrelevant, irrelevant, you just can't seem to get a handle on this thing of relevancy. Irrelevant question, irrelevant, etc., ad nauseam, in separate articles.
* * *
Berea Baptist Church, P.O. BOX 39, Mantachie, MS 38855
September 5, 1996
Dear Bro. Evans,
Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I shall not take the time to reply to your many staments [sic] about me or the BBB. After 20 years as the editor of a national Baptist paper have learned that men like you do not really want to know my position? You are among the very few who do not seem to know where I stand on the issues. Ruckmanites inquire only to belittle and blast those who do not agree with them. I am aware of your many letters to various people over the KJV. Bob Ross is one that I might mentioned [sic] by name.
I would answer your letter. Then you would send me another, etc. It would go on indefinitely [sic]. No doubt you have the time for such things. I do not. Write me as many letters as you may care to do so. I will not waste my time on such things. I have better things to do.Yours in the Blessed Hope, Milburn Cockrell
* * *
September11, 1996=
Milburn Cockrell, P.O., Box 39 Mantachie, MS 38855
Dear Brother Cockrell,
Thank you for your letter and frankness. You certainly have a right to refuse to answer my questions and statements. If you think that it is ethical for you to "hit and run" that is your prerogative. You are not obligated to answer me. Still, when you splatter my name or names of others all over your paper without responding to the resulting grievances, it wouldn't surprise me if some thought that to be "yellow journalism."
You are correct that I do not want to know your position, regarding the KJB. I already know it, for it is very obvious. Bible correctors are not able to hide their sentiments, even under the guise of pro-KJB articles and doublespeak. You say "Ruckmanites" (I wonder if you are able to define that one?) Inquire only to belittle and blast those who do not agree with them. The way that I see it, your paper belittled and blasted the King James Bible and KJBadvocates, with which it does not agree. When KJB advocates responded in ways that Bible correctors are not prepared to deal, they were conveniently disregarded or ignored. I suspect that that is really the case rather than “wasting time.”If you have better things to do than polemic letters regarding the KJB issue, why spend the time running ant-KJB sentiments IN THE FIRST PLACE? If you wouldn’t do this, you wouldn’t have received any such letters.
You say that you are aware of my letters to others, namely Bob Ross. You should be; I sent you the copies of those letters. You should also be aware that my letters to Bob Ross and Sandlin were restrained compared to both his and Sandlin's malignant and malevolent diatribes against everything that moves. My words to you and Settlemoir were restrained and polite (much more so than you and Settlemoir's comments to and about me).
To sum it all up, it is much better to have friends than enemies. Possibly, I have givenyou something to think about; perhaps, you will one day be enlightened to a stronger position. if that day comes, l will rejoice in more so than "blasting” your position, Until then, continue to take a "stand and contend" for that which you think is right, while others "belittle and blast," regarding that which they think is right.
Yours in the defense of God's word,
Herb Evans, Electronically Scanned from the Jan/Feb/March 1997 Flaming Torch