Cockrell Duplicity Letter
Sep 16, 2003 05:10 PDT
COCKRELL DUPLICITY LETTER
Electronically Scanned from the Jan/Feb/March 1997 Flaming Torch
Pertinent Letters to the Berea Baptist Banner's duplicity, dishonesty, and
Herb Evans, 157 Patties Place, Portersville, PA 16051
August 8, 1995
Mantachie, Mississippi 38855
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 "Berea Baptist 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 nor 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
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 from February 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
had 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.
l do have a problem with your name calling, i.e., "Ruckmanite," when there
one 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
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
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
157 Patties Place
Portersville, PA 16051
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,
* * *
Herb Evans 157 Patties Place, Portersville, PA 16051
September 11, 1996
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 KJB advocates, 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 given you 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,