Well I may as well start an argument given that I'm not a Presbyterian.
I struggle with whether the so-called "ruling-elder" can be justified from Scripture given the paucity of evidence. The so-called classic verse used to prove such a position is 1 Tim. 5:17 isn't, in my mind, good enough to justify the distinction between the teaching and ruling elder:
1Tim 5:17 "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially [
malista] those whose work is preaching and teaching."
The word for "especially",
malista, could mean "especially". But it has another meaning being "namely, I mean". The former rendering leads to a certain ambiguity (are the so-called "ruling elders" to deserve double honour or not). And the latter rendering fits better with the notion that all elders in 1 Tim. 3:2 must be "skillful in teaching" (
didaktikos).