Mark Bullen and His Biblical Canon Fantasy

One of the most consequential theological questions a Christian must ask is: How do we know which books belong in the Bible? That is, how do we know what constitutes the canon of Scripture? This issue is foundational, for if one cannot identify the inspired Word of God with certainty, one cannot claim to build one's faith upon it.

Recently, I engaged in a lengthy and passionate exchange with my former pastor, Mark Bullen, who maintains a strong anti-Catholic stance while holding to a version of Sola Scriptura that presumes the canon is self-evident. He believes that the early apostolic churches copied and passed around lists of inspired books and that they simply "knew" which writings were authentically apostolic based on their internal quality, familiarity with doctrine, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This view—though sincere—is historically untenable and logically incoherent.

The Canon According to Mark Bullen: Private Revelation and Apostolic Gnosticism

Mark insisted that local assemblies in the first century somehow preserved an authentic New Testament canon. In his own words: "The Local Apostolic Assemblies were the ones who preserved the Scriptures entrusted to them." He explains that Scripture was recognized based on "internal and external evidence... with the leading of the Holy Spirit." Further, he adds that "the quality or internal evidence speaks to those who are intimately familiar with the Scriptures and its doctrine—kind of like: my sheep know my voice." apart from any Church-wide consensus or authoritative council. He claims these early churches knew the correct books because of their apostolic origin and spiritual discernment—essentially, "my sheep know my voice."

But while Mark insists this was public knowledge passed down from those who "knew" the Apostles, his framework ultimately hinges on unrecorded, unverifiable communal memory. If the definitive list of inspired writings was not given explicitly by the Apostles, then he is implicitly entrusting the preservation of the canon to the post-apostolic Church—to ordinary men relying on oral tradition and spiritual intuition. This is functionally indistinguishable from the very Apostolic Tradition he denies.

The Scriptures were not preserved by private intuition or isolated local consensus, but through the living and universal discernment of the Church. While individual churches sometimes held differing views on certain texts—especially the disputed books like Hebrews, Revelation, and 2 Peter—it was through the shared Tradition, apostolic succession, and conciliar deliberation that the Church ultimately recognized and canonized the apostolic writings. This process, though gradual and marked by disagreement, was guided by the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised (cf. John 16:13), and culminated in the authoritative witness of the Church—“the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

What Does the Historical Record Actually Show?

• There is no evidence of canonical lists being distributed or created by local assemblies in the first century. The Apostles wrote letters to specific communities, but no inspired table of contents accompanied them.
• The first known attempt at a canon was by the heretic Marcion around 144 A.D. His truncated canon (excluding the Old Testament and editing Paul’s letters) was rightly condemned by the Church.
• The earliest surviving fragment of a Christian canon is the Muratorian Fragment, dated to around 170 A.D. It includes most—but not all—New Testament books. Notably, it omits Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John.
• Most of the New Testament books which were absent from the Muratorian Fragment were disputed and debated for centuries, including:
  
  Hebrews (disputed in the West)
  James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John (questioned due to brevity and limited circulation)
  Jude (due to its quotation of 1 Enoch)
  Revelation (due to apocalyptic content and doctrinal concerns)
  
  St. Jerome himself noted the doubts around these books but ultimately accepted them. Origen acknowledged disputes on several of these texts. Eusebius, in his Church History (Book 3, Chapter 25), classified some of these as "disputed books," even while others considered them canonical.
• The first time the full 27-book New Testament list appears in history is in the Easter Letter of St. Athanasius in 367 A.D.—over three centuries after the Resurrection.
• This canon was ratified at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), where the Church formally listed the 27 New Testament books. The Council of Carthage stated: "[It was] determined that nothing should be read in church under the name of the divine Scriptures except the canonical writings..." These councils did not invent the canon but confirmed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what had already been received and discerned in the life of the Church. It was Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), where the Catholic Church exercised her magisterial authority to formally close the New Testament canon. It was not "invented" by Rome but discerned and defined through apostolic succession and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To claim, as Mark does, that there was complete 27-book lists circulating since the first century—in what he described as "the Local Apostolic Assemblies... [who] preserved the Scriptures entrusted to them" and who recognized them "based on internal and external evidence" under "the leading of the Holy Spirit"—is not only historically unsubstantiated, but it also amounts to a theological conspiracy theory. The notion that first-century apostolic churches universally held a 27-book canon identical to today’s New Testament lacks any basis in the historical record. History proves the opposite.

The Problem of Interpretation: Infallible Book, Fallible Reader

Mark argues that Scripture is the only final authority and that the proper interpretation determines truth. Yet he simultaneously denies that any Church has the authority to provide that interpretation. This leaves him in the contradictory position of affirming an infallible book while rejecting any infallible interpreter.

The result? Every man becomes his own magisterium, and as history has shown, sincere believers arrive at radically different conclusions—even on issues central to salvation.

Irenaeus pointed out that Scripture was not essential to preserve the faith among the earliest converts. In the same work, he writes: "For though the barbarians in our midst do not have written documents, yet by means of Tradition, they have salvation... they diligently observe the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth."

This highlights how unrealistic it is to imagine a perfect, universally-circulated 27-book canon among apostolic churches. The truth of the Gospel was transmitted and safeguarded even where the Scriptures were absent. Authority, not private familiarity, preserved the faith. As Tertullian affirmed in Prescription Against Heretics (21): "If the Lord Jesus Christ sent the Apostles to preach, no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed... the faith comes by succession, not by novelty." As St. Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies (Book 3, Chapter 4), "It is not right to seek from others that truth which it is easy to receive from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth." the Ethiopian eunuch is reading Isaiah and says, "How can I understand unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:31). Philip, ordained and sent by the Apostles, provides that authoritative interpretation—not based on private judgment or inner witness, but on the apostolic teaching passed down through the Church.

Why Defend A Historical Fantasy?

Mark Bullen must hold to the belief that a fixed 27-book New Testament canon was known and preserved by apostolic congregations from the very first century because of the theological demands of his Sola Scriptura position.

The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura asserts that the Bible alone is the sole infallible authority for Christian faith and practice. But this principle presupposes a definitive and recognized set of inspired books—i.e., a canon. If the canon is uncertain, then the foundation of Sola Scriptura is undermined. Therefore, to maintain Sola Scriptura without depending on the authority of the Catholic Church (which historically discerned and canonized the Scriptures), Mark must assert that the canon was somehow "known" apart from the Church’s magisterium. This requires the belief that the apostolic assemblies already had access to the full, correct list of books from the very beginning.

Mark cannot acknowledge the role of the Church councils in the 4th century in defining the canon without conceding that an authoritative, Spirit-guided Church existed to make such judgments. That would refute his ecclesiology and challenge his anti-Catholicism. To escape this, he must imagine an undocumented scenario in which early churches already functioned with a unified canon, recognized by "internal evidence" and the “voice of the Spirit.”

If the certain books were still being contested into the 3rd and 4th centuries—as history shows—then the notion of a pristine apostolic faith passed down untainted in written form becomes complicated. That would raise serious questions about how God guides His Church and how truth is preserved—which again leads back to the need for an authoritative Church. Ultimately, Mark’s position on the canon is not historically grounded—it is a theological necessity.

The Irony of His Belief

There is a profound irony in Mark Bullen’s theory of canon formation.

He asserts that the early apostolic congregations—not the Apostles themselves—were the ones who discerned and preserved the correct list of inspired New Testament writings.

In doing so, he acknowledges that the definitive list of 27 books was not explicitly given by the Apostles, but rather emerged through a process of reception, recognition, and transmission by the post-apostolic Church. This means he is implicitly entrusting the canon’s preservation to ordinary Christians relying on oral tradition, ecclesial memory, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit—precisely the framework Catholics refer to as Apostolic Tradition.

In essence, Mark proposes an organic, Spirit-led continuity rooted in apostolic teaching and communal discernment—mirroring the very notion of Apostolic Succession that he rejects. His position ultimately depends on an early Church-wide consensus, unaided by a centralized decree, yet still capable of faithfully transmitting the canon—a process functionally indistinguishable from the Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition.

Conclusion: The Canon Requires a Church

Mark Bullen’s canon theory collapses under its own weight. It rests on historically unsupported assumptions, dismisses the well-documented process of canon formation, and elevates private judgment above the authority of the Church. Ultimately, his position undermines the very trustworthiness of the Bible he wishes to defend.

The New Testament did not fall from heaven leather-bound. It was written, preserved, discerned, and canonized within the life of the Church. To accept the authority of the canon is to accept the authority of the Church that gave it to us.

That Church—founded by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, and historically responsible for recognizing and defending the sacred books—is not an abstract idea or an invisible community. It is a visible, apostolic body, known throughout history as the Catholic Church.

I have attached the email discourse between Mark Bullen & myself below.
I did ask for permission in the final email and have never received an answer from him regarding anything he would like redacted (I did redact our email addresses).

Also check out:
The Fallible Foundation of Protestantism
by Angelo Romano