Mark Bullen's "Foundation Stones" with his Roman Catholic Errors
Mark Bullen, self-appointed Pastor and "Bishop" of Living Faith Christian Fellowship recently spent time rewriting his "Doctrinal Study Guide" for "Apostolic Faith & Biblical Christian Living", now calling it "Foundation Stones for Apostolic Faith & Biblical Christian Living". Besides expanding it, making his personal testimony section much, much longer, he rails on the Roman Catholic Church a few more times than he did before (why am I not surprised?).
Besides the obvious, that Mark Bullen has neither Apostolic Succession nor Apostolic Faith (and how did Christians live as "Biblical Christian" before the canon of the Bible?), I want to correct his errors that he projects about the Roman Catholic Church.
1) Foundation Stones, page 6:
The Romanists try from this foundation to argue for "oral tradition", thus excusing their flagrant additions to the Word, however, I believe A.R. Fausset said it well when commenting on 1Co 11:1,2: "Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. The difficulty is to know what is genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (Rev. 22:18). Those preserved in the written Word alone can be proved to be such."
The Romanists hate ―"Sola Scriptura" – the Bible being the Sole Authority for Faith and Practice. They misrepresent it and banter against it. Why? Because they want to justify and validate hordes of superstitious nonsense that gives them power over the people and money in their coffers. The first move they will try to make in converting someone is to break down their confidence in the Bible‘s authority and the individual‘s ability to understand what the Apostles wrote to the common people of their day. The last thing Satan wants is for you to cling to your Bible and contend for The Faith Once For All Delivered To The Saints.
Sola Scriptura is a doctrine not found inside the scriptura. It is self-refuting on many levels. The Bible can't be the "Sole Authority" as it never states that it is the sole authority, nor did the Bible exist until the 4th century. The biblical canon (which books belong in the Bible) is not found inside of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church settled the issue of which books belong in the category of sacred scripture and then Protestantism came along eleven centuries later and started removing books, removing sections and reinterpreting them to their own destruction.
The Bible alone has no interpreter, no meaning and no authority. Mark rightly states "individual‘s ability to understand what the Apostles wrote", as a Bible by itself can only be understood by the individual, which is subjectivism. Each Protestant individual is always "understand[ing] what the Apostles wrote" according to their own "individual ability". That's why Protestantism has 40,000+ denominations. Protestants are always understanding things slightly different than the last person.
The last thing Satan wants is for you to find the truth, the Gospel and the true Church. He wants you confident in your own understanding.
2) Foundation Stones, page 10:
We don't have to rely on modern "scholarship", Romanist priests, or "education" to lead us. The Bible is understandable to those who strive to understand with intent to obey and pray for illumination.
You don't rely on scholarship?? Who translated your Bible?
You don't need "education"? You mean reading and logic isn't necessary?
The Bible is understandable as long as you're striving to understand it while wanting to obey whatever you understand and praying for illumination?
What is this, Mormonism? Do you also feel a burning in your bosom when the illumination comes and you finally understand what you were striving to understand and wanting to obey??
So, in context with what Mark wrote: we don't solely rely on "Romanist priests" to understand "clear revelation of God's will for man". We actually believe that priests can be and are wrong at times. They are not impeccable.
Catholics don't solely rely on “modern scholarship” or individual priests, but on the apostolic deposit of faith, faithfully handed down, and guarded by the teaching office of the Church. This is the same process by which the canon of Scripture itself was discerned and preserved; by the universal Church, not by isolated individuals.
Thus, the “clear revelation of God’s will” is not a matter of private interpretation, subjective feeling, or democratic vote; it is what has been taught everywhere, always, and by all in unbroken apostolic continuity. The authentic interpreter of that revelation is the Church to which Christ gave His Spirit and His authority.
3) Foundation Stones, page 41:
Believing one has to obey Christ (and thus show his faith) in order to receive Christ's gracious atonement is different than believing that your obedience to a creed or law will atone for your own sins apart from Christ - or in order to help Christ (Romanists). The Bible states clearly that we must obey Jesus to be saved.
Mark Bullen is again misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches...
If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
(CANON I - General Council of Trent: Sixth Session)
If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.
(CANON X - General Council of Trent: Sixth Session)
If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments; let him be anathema.
(CANON XX - General Council of Trent: Sixth Session)
Where does it get such wild claims? He must be making this stuff up or is just completely ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually teaches!
4) Foundation Stones, page 42:
"Many churches excommunicate for reasons contrary to scripture. The Amish and the Roman Catholics are an example of people who add to the commands of the New Testament through their traditions; and as the Pharisees, they "teach for doctrines the commandments of men".
[quotes 1 Timothy 4:1-3]
At the same time, we also have the Baptists, and the Protestants who forsake "APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS" which they are bound by Scripture to obey"
First off, I find it comical that he mentions "Apostolic traditions" after he mentions Protestants, as ones who forsake Apostolic Traditions (which he indicates they are bound to obey) and yet he blasts Roman Catholics as ones who "add to the command of the New Testament through their traditions". Wait! What traditions? The Apostolic Traditions perhaps?
The traditions that the Roman Catholics excommunicate folks over are Apostolic Traditions; meaning, traditions that have been passed down by the successors of the Apostles; from the Apostles and Christ Himself.
5) Foundation Stones, page 49:
"They also knew that before Jesus would come, there was going to be a great apostasy from the faith, and an antichrist system set up - which happened in the Roman Catholic system. The believers carried a heavy responsibility to defend the true faith against all the heretics of the day."
So, by his grammar here, is he saying that the "Roman Catholic system" apostatized from the faith? I don't think that's what he means, but maybe he does... Anyhow, just more opinion and conjecture, nothing concrete here...
6) Foundation Stones, page 119:
1) Faith must have the attribute of obedience or it is not true faith.
2) Obedience to God must stem from faith in him, or it is not acceptable to him.
There is also an obedience of faith with the wrong object of our faith. The Jesus of the Bible is to be our object of faith: not the Roman Catholic Pope; a certain church; a famous preacher; pastor, etc. There are those who follow the Catholic teachings with the obedience of faith – their faith has obedience; and their obedience is from faith; but with the Wrong Object.
"The Jesus of the Bible", as defined and understood by Mark Bullen, I believe he means
The object of our faith, per the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent), is "all those things which are divinely revealed and proposed by the Church to our belief, whether contained in Scripture or not.” - Part I, Article 1, The Creed
(Whether contained in Scripture or not, refers back to Apostolic Tradition (see Response to #4)).
And then from the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 14. What is the object of faith?
A. The object of faith is all the truths which God has revealed.
Q. 15. Why must we believe all the truths which God has revealed?
A. We must believe all the truths which God has revealed because God is the very truth, and cannot deceive or be deceived.
St Thomas Aquinas writes:
"The object of faith is the First Truth, by reason of which we believe the other truths revealed by God." (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.1, a.1)
The asserted claim that "the object of our faith is the Roman Catholic Pope" is a false straw man argument.
7) Foundation Stones, page 125:
"My soul agonizes to see how Satan has used this trick on so much of what is called Christianity today. Who would have thought that the zeal to win lost souls would cause men to fall into a false, watered down, Gospel to produce more "numbers". Who would have thought that the desire to avoid the errors of Roman Catholicism in their "adding to Scripture" and making salvation come through the church's merit system, would lead so many into the Antinomian heresy of false repentance and false faith, which is afraid of anything that could be called "works" - even obedience to Jesus Christ."
In Roman Catholicism, neither is there "adding to Scripture" nor "salvation through the Church's merit system", but rather, per the Roman Catechism, we are taught:
"Without faith in Christ there is no justification nor salvation; for without faith it is impossible to please God."
(Article IX: The Holy Catholic Church, “Necessity of Faith”)
“For the works of the just would be altogether insufficient to merit eternal life, were they not rendered valuable by the merits of Christ’s Passion...”
(Article X: The Remission of Sins)
"It is necessary to teach that, although the works of the just are truly meritorious, yet their merit and worth arise not from anything in themselves, but from the grace of God and the merits of Christ Jesus."
(Article X: The Remission of Sins)
Mark Bullen, once again, falsely portrays Roman Catholics as having faith in the Church (instead of Christ) and "making salvation come through the church's merit system" instead of through the "merits of Christ Jesus" by the "merits of Christ's Passion", as the Catholic Church clearly teaches.
8) Foundation Stones, page 135:
WE ARE JUSTIFIED PERPETUALLY BY WALKING IN THE LIGHT AND CONFESSING KNOWN SINS PERPETUALLY!
So, unlike the Old Testament saints who came to the earthly tabernacle to an earthly priest with an animal sacrifice that could not really take away sins; we come to the Heavenly Tabernacle to Jesus who has offered himself the perfect lamb. We have a much better covenant, built on better promises, with better provision, a better priest, easy access, and, instead of praising God for it and using it, we want "our sins forgiven past, present, and future", so we can live as we please and never have to be bothered with our sins again! If this isn't Roman Catholic Selling Of Indulgences, I don't know what is! The Romanists have also usurped Christ‘s priesthood with the false claim that they are Christ‘s priesthood sacrificing Christ over and over; and you must go to them to do penance for absolution – such we should expect from apostate religion.
Congratulations on thinking that we must be walking in the light and confessing known sins perpetually. Maybe I should introduce you to the universal Christian faith called Catholic! Maybe then you would see that the New Covenant tabernacle and priesthood is a better covenant, built on better promises, a better priest, easier access...!
Regarding Indulgences, perhaps you should research what they actually are and also realize that the Selling of Indulgences was condemned at the Council of Trent in 1563AD:
“Since the power of granting indulgences has been conferred by Christ upon the Church, and this power, divinely entrusted to her, has been used from the most ancient times, the sacred council teaches and commands that the usage of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the sacred councils, is to be kept in the Church; and it anathematizes those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.
In granting them, however, the council desires that moderation, in accordance with the ancient and approved usage in the Church, be observed, lest by excessive facility ecclesiastical discipline be enfeebled.
In view of the abuses which have crept in among the Christian people through the granting of indulgences, by reason of which this illustrious name of indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, the holy council decrees that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof be most carefully abolished.
For this reason, and for other reasons, it decrees that all those base profits which, out of occasion or pretext of indulgences, might accrue, whencesoever they may arise, be wholly abolished.
And it enjoins on bishops to report abuses of this kind to the next provincial synod, so that, with the advice of other bishops, they may at once be corrected. Let all be moderate and cautious in granting them, in accordance with the ancient custom and discipline of the Church, lest ecclesiastical discipline be weakened.”
(Council of Trent, Session 25, Decree on Indulgences, December 4, 1563)
And then regarding Mark's statement of "with the false claim that they are Christ's priesthood sacrificing Christ over and over;", is he here accusing the Catholic priesthood of "sacrificing Christ over and over"?? If so, is he here granting the Catholic priesthood the power or authority to do such an act? Regardless, I don't think Mark believes that the Catholic priesthood can re-sacrifice Christ over and over, but rather that they claim they do so. So let's just pause right there for a moment and see what the Catholic Church teaches about such a claim:
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.
Council of Trent - Session the XII, Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter II
“We must believe that the sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same sacrifice with that of the Cross; for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, who offered Himself once only by a bloody death on the altar of the Cross. The manner alone of offering is different. In the Mass, there is no new victim offered nor a new oblation, but the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the Cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”
(Roman Catechism, Part II, On the Eucharist, “On the Sacrifice of the Mass”)
So the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not re-sacrificing "Christ over and over" as Mark Bullen would have you to believe, but making present that "one and the same sacrifice of the Cross".
9) Foundation Stones, page 193:
"The apostles, then, in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches-one after another-borrowed the tradition of faith and the seeds of doctrine. And they are every day borrowing them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is only on this account that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic--as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must revert to its original mold for its classification." Tertullian 197 AD
Tertullian just blew a hole in Roman Catholic ideology concerning their classification and church traditions; as they have forsaken the original mold, yet want all to believe they are still classified as the Apostolic Faith.
Maybe he missed it, but Tertullian just confirmed that Churches became Churches by "borrowing the tradition of faith and the seeds of doctrine" and they only could be deemed apostolic by "being the offspring of apostolic churches"! Not by Bible alone, sola scriptura... but by Apostolic Succession.
Tertullian continues by saying "Every sort of thing must revert to its original mold for its classification." which is still referring to Apostolic origin: Apostolic faith, apostolic succession, apostolic doctrine.
The term "original mold" was redefined and reinterpreted by Mark Bullen to mean "the way I understand apostolic faith" and he effectively shoehorns his own viewpoint backwards on to Tertullian's writings from the 2nd century. Let's see how Tertullian described this "original mold" for "its classification" in regards to churches deeming "themselves apostolic":
Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality — privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.
(De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Chapter 20)
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for "no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him." Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach — that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached — in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them — can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches— those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.
(De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Chapter 21)
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.
(De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Chapter 32)
The ironic part about this section is that Mark Bullen quotes Tertullian from De Praescriptione Haereticorum in Chapter 20 and failed to see or understand what this "original mold" and classification for Apostolic Faith really was. If he would have kept reading the rest of the book, he could have easily seen that the proof of apostolicity which Tertullian was writing about was Apostolic Succession (proven by the records of their bishops) and Apostolic Doctrine.
Unfortunately the uneducated reader will blindly follow everything Mark writes and then notices a QUOTE from a Church Father that seems to agree with Mark Bullen, and they begin to believe that the early church believed like them and that they are continuing on with the apostolic faith. This kind of cherry picking quotes from early Church fathers to support the claim is typical Protestant apologetics. The uneducated reader only needs to dig a little further in the same book (usually) to find the rest of the data that completely destroys the straw man that was just erected to expose the lie.
I'll ask like Tertullian, "Please produce the original records of your church; unfold the roll of your bishops running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that Mark Bullen shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers. And let us examine your doctrine with that of the apostles to see whether it derives from an apostle or apostolic man."
Tertullian, the man who you quoted to "prove" "Roman Catholic ideology" wrong, just launched a torpedo into your little ark.
