[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Sort of like Nee in Further Talks. He effectively dismisses the house churches as relevant to the discussion because at face value they would contradict the one-city-one-church rule. But until you weigh all the evidence, there is no rule to apply. But he had a rule he wanted and he could not dismiss this contrary evidence without declaring that since it violated the rule, it must mean something else. But that proves that he had a bias in favor of the rule such that he used an as-yet un-established rule to dismiss any evidence that would cause it to fail to become the rule.

Well said. A little wordy, but like I said, "well said."