The Talk

“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13)

Introduction

The following will be a critique, not so much of Peter Owen’s talk in particular, but of Christadelphian signs-hype in general, using the talk as a representative springboard to that end. It would be easy for me to point at a poorly reasoned, poorly presented ‘signs of the times’ talk with an accusative-‘There, see? I told you it was all a load of twaddle!’-finger. But that would surely be an uncharitable approach. Rather, I have chosen Owen’s talk because I think it is well presented, and that by a genuine man. He represents the Christadelphian approach to the end-times well, but in so doing, he also manifests the same errors of that approach. By addressing his talk, therefore, I will be addressing what I believe to be two of the key malignancies in Christadelphian end-times thought in general.

The Ground of Faith

At around 16:45 in the video, Owen says that signs of the times have been given to us to show that we can really hold onto our faith. In so saying, he presents a common, erroneous belief amongst Christadelphians, that faith is rooted in proof of the veracity of the Bible, or the existence of God. First, observe current events; second, understand Bible prophecy; third, see the connection between the two; fourth, be forced into the acknowledgement that God, and only God, could have written the Bible.

In principle, I have no objection to bejewelling the fact of the divine inspiration of the scriptures with fulfilled prophecy. God Himself points to this proof of His authority, as he makes a mockery of the false gods:

“Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come.” (Isaiah 41:22)

But the simple acknowledgement of God as the only true God is not enough. As James points out:

“You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” (James 2:19)

This sort of “belief” would score an A on any ‘prove God exists’ exam, but it is not saving faith. It is not what Paul means when he speaks of “the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16). Indeed, in the same breath as that statement, Paul rejects the notion that anyone truly, deep down, rejects the existence of God. Creation makes it too obvious:

“...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom 1:19-20)

Evidence, proof, argument, logic, reason. The best these things can do – and, don’t get me wrong, they really are good things – is to bring a person to the point of moral obligation to believe in God. But they are powerless to turn that moral switch from ‘off’ to ‘on.’ Thus, it is awfully possible to tick all the right boxes, and still be in a state of fundamental rebellion against God.

Imagine a little boy who had been rolling around in the mud, pig-style, and after finally being discovered by his mother, she proceeded to convince him beyond any doubt that the family shower existed. She left no room for question, or meaningful rebuttal. In fact, she even went so far as to prove, through an undeniable sequence of logic, that the shower worked, and would even work if the said little boy would jump underneath it and turn the tap on. Then, having said her piece, she walked back into the house, just hoping he would see the light.

This is what we are doing when we use prophetic proofs and supposed ‘signs of the times’ as the pillar and ground of faith. You may change a person’s mind about showers. You may even convince him to join a club called “Showers Exist and We Can Prove It.” But somehow, for some reason, he just likes being caked in mud and BO, and won’t agree to take a shower. His head may assent to showers, but in his heart, he is far from them.

Paul believed the power to change the heart was vested in the gospel message itself – “it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16); and, again, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17). When men and women hear “the preaching of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18) – that we are sinners in Adam; that God has condemned Adam’s race to death; that He sent His Son to live, die, and be resurrected on our behalf, so that we could be a new Adam in Him; that we are commanded to repent and have faith in Him alone for our salvation; that it is only through this Adam 2.0 that man’s chief end of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever can be accomplished – it is this message that has the power to change their hearts. 

Owen’s comment – that signs of the times give us a reason to hold onto our faith in the modern world – sounds rather innocent on the surface. Perhaps he, and many Christadelphians, may even agree with much of what I have said. After all, his statement is somewhat off-the-cuff. But in a way, this is what makes it so significant. It is the ease with which he says something so fundamentally anti-New-Testament that gives me reason for concern, not just for him, but for the hundreds and thousands of other Christadelphians who take this type of statement in their stride. The ‘signs of the times’ mentioned by Owen, even if they did have anything to do with Bible prophecy, emphatically do not show us that we can hold onto our faith in the modern world.

Why does this matter? Because men like Owen have children, and a reasonably large Christadelphian audience at their fingertips. The video I am referencing racked up two hundred views in a day, where all others on the channel seem to rarely break thirty. If, to all these people, faith in God is presented as contingent upon the frequency and intelligibility of ‘Signs of the Times,’ then it is incumbent upon the preachers of this gospel to provide ample source material to foster this ‘faith.’ Otherwise, if and when the signs are not forthcoming, the said ‘faith’ will go kaput.

This is a false gospel. It presents a false faith. And men like Peter Owen – as nice as he seems; I’m sure he’s a great guy – will have to answer to God for the people who trusted in their authority on this matter. Leaders are not always guilty for the sins of their sheep, but they are responsible, and they will be held accountable. If this is you, and you are reading this, your duty is to repent, and be as public in your change as you were in your error.

Textbook Confirmation Bias

I will admit that, as I watched Peter Owen’s talk, I was often moved to a state of quiet, affectionate mirth. The sort of chuckle that says “Come on, guys. Surely you can see how silly this is.” An example of this may be found at 17:35 in the video, when Owen put up a news article about the death of a Russian general on an electric scooter. It was, indeed, a fascinating story, but it remains unclear to me exactly how this fulfilled Bible prophecy. Perhaps it wasn’t clear to Owen, either, as indicated by his rather hand-wavy statement on the matter:

“So we’re watching, aren’t we, and trying to see how it is that the angels are operating and working in the world, that these real events, these big events that are taking place are bringing about the plan and the purpose of God.”

His statement is certainly correct. That is what Christadelphians are doing. But as they do it, what is increasingly clear to me, is that they present themselves as a prime example of confirmation bias.

By analogy, consider a Muslim reading the Old Testament. He believes it was once the word of God, but has become corrupted over time. So as he reads, he labels anything in the text with which he agrees as ‘inspired scripture,’ and anything with which he disagrees must have been corrupted. That’s confirmation bias: selectively interpreting information in a way that aligns with pre-existing beliefs, while dismissing or ignoring information that contradicts those beliefs.

Christadelphians do exactly this when it comes to ‘signs of the times.’ I will use two examples from Owen’s talk to demonstrate my point.

The first is at 34:40-35:50 in the video. At this point in the talk, Owen is discussing the recent fall of the Russian-backed Assad regime in Syria. Now, from a Christadelphian perspective, this current event does not align with what is expected on the basis of Daniel 11. The King of the North (which is said to be Russia) is supposed to have control of (or at least, in) Syria, so that it can be the king of the north. In fact, I still remember the rush of expectation that hit me in 2019 when the United States withdrew from Syria, and Russia stepped in to fill the vacuum. It was Bible prophecy being fulfilled before my very eyes. It was a big deal.

But now that the Assad regime has fallen, Russia’s influence in the region has substantially declined. So what does Owen say?

“Russia is wounded. Their geopolitical strategy has failed, it seems, in Syria. We’ve just watched, over the last decade, how Russia responds when it’s humiliated, when it’s undermined. We wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised to see Bashar al-Assad wanting to work with Valdimir Putin to retake something of Syria, to be able to come down through that northern territory – the old king of the north territory.”

Now, consider this: if Russia’s influence in Syria had increased by even a tenth of the amount by which it has actually decreased, it would be treated as a big deal by Christadelphians. It would be ‘just what we expect to happen.’ It would be ‘Bible prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes.’ But no, Russia’s claim on Syria has not increased; it has decreased substantially. So in this situation, what do Christadelphians say? ‘We wouldn’t be surprised if Russia retakes control of part of Syria.’

What is going on here is Christadelphians are selectively interpreting events to align with pre-existing Christadelphian beliefs, regardless of the actual outcome. If Russia’s influence in Syria had increased, Christadelphians would see it as a clear fulfillment of Bible prophecy and a validation of their expectations based on Daniel 11. But when the exact opposite occurs, they reinterpret the event to still fit their narrative. They propose a hypothetical future scenario in which Russia gets revenge, or regains control. This flexibility in interpretation ensures that every outcome, whether congruent or contradictory, serves as evidence for their beliefs. It’s an unfalsifiable framework, utterly insulated from genuine scrutiny or intellectual honesty.

In a word, it’s textbook confirmation bias.

Another exemplary moment in the video is 50:45. In this segment, Owen acknowledges freely that, in many respects, current events do not actually confirm Christadelphian expectations. For example, he admits that, despite Russia and Europe supposedly being aligned at the time of the end, there is currently a deep rift between them. Christadelphians would much prefer that relationship to be friendly, but the facts are, it is not.

Now, it is important to note that, in the talk, there is no actual solution given to this problem, other than by making reference to the ‘humanitarian crisis’ in Gaza as a common concern between Russia and the EU. The implication is that, since they both decry Israel’s war in Gaza, they will somehow be induced to become allies in a hypothetical war in the near future.

Note, again, the selective emphasis on supporting evidence. Owen has found one common concern between the nations, and used this to spin an extraordinary narrative in which they become allies in a war against Israel. Rather than actually grappling with the immediate contradiction between current events and Ezekiel 38 (the current deep rift between Russia and Europe), he chooses to highlight a tenuous point of agreement – criticism of Israel. Such selective emphasis allows him to shift attention away from the inconvenient facts to focus on a scenario that aligns with Christadelphian expectations. It’s clever, but it’s invalid reasoning.

I cannot emphasise enough how essential it is to grasp this concept. Confirmation bias is a scourge of poor reasoning that infects almost every Christadelphian discussion of prophecy, and insulates the system from any criticism. So when a Christadelphian appeals to me with the question: “What about the signs of the times that confirm our understanding of Bible prophecy?” I simply reply with another: “What about the signs that don’t?”

Conclusion

The talk ends (as all of the best ‘signs of the times’ talks do) with good ol’ Luke 21:28. And much as I would like to point out that v32 of the same chapter couldn’t be any clearer if it went blue in the face with trying, I will restrain myself. Those who want to know the truth can read it for themselves. And to my Christadelphian family and friends who already recognise the truth about Christ’s Olivet Prophecy, who are frustrated by its loose application to current events, I have this to say. When you take the time to look into it honestly, the same false principles that lead many Christadelphians to misunderstand the Olivet Prophecy also lead you to misunderstand passages like Daniel 11, Joel 3 and Revelation 16. Self-centred interpretations; anachronistic back-readings; two-thousand-year leaps of time that become less visible the better your prescription is. The clarity of the gospel – of Christ crucified – is what will enable you to read the Bible afresh. Focus on that, and believe in Him.