Single Pastor vs Elder Led. EXACTLY WHERE IN SCRIPTURE?

[Alan Gross]

from: Exactly where in the Bible.....

EXACTLY WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DOES THE BIBLE
GIVE A DEFINITE ANSWER
FOR THE FOLLOWING DOCTRINES?

single pastor or elder-led
...

elder-led =

I Peter 5:3b; "Neither as being lords over God's heritage..."

Revelation 2:15; "So hast thou also them
that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which thing I hate."

Baptist History Notebook
Chapter 2, pg. 9,
JESUS ESTABLISHES HIS CHURCH.

1. Church Government Changed.

In developing his church Satan began by corrupting the doctrinal teachings of the Lord's church from within. He has his servants in all churches. The first corruption came in his seeking to change the form of church government that Christ gave. His subtility is seen in this.

There was a plurality of elders (preachers) in the early churches. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church" (Acts 20:17). It seems that today we have a scarcity of preachers but not then.

These elders were to be equal, one was not to lord it over another. "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder. . . . Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage (clergy), but being ensamples to the flock" (I Peter 5:1-3). See our Lord's instruction on equality (Matthew 23:1-12).

Early in history, Satan led some away from that truth. Diotrephes is an example given in III John 9.

We read in Revelation 2:15, "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which thing I hate." Without being positive what this doctrine was, I think the meaning lies in the name.

It comes from two Greek words. The first is nikaw which means "to conquer."

The second is laos which means "people."

So then it means to conquer the people or laity.

Thus we have a ruling clergy.

Thus developed an episcopal church government in place of a congregational one.

What kind of government is this?

"Episcopacy, Episcopal."

These terms are derived from the Greek episcopos, meaning 'bishop.'

They refer accordingly to that system of church government in which the principal officer is the bishop."1 Baker's Dictionary of Theology, page 184 - Article by Leon Morris.
...

single pastor =

A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine by Thomas Paul Simmons
Chapter 30 The Doctrine of the Church.
V. THE ORDAINED OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH.

The New Testament mentions only two ordained officers in the church.

They are: 1. ELDERS OR BISHOPS.

The title "elder" or "bishop" designated the chief officer in New Testament churches. The occupants of this office presided over the services, taught and led the people in Christian doctrines and duties, and took general oversight of the churches.

These two titles are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and, therefore, designate the same office. Their interchangeable use may be seen in Acts 20:17 and verse 28 of the same chapter. In the first passage it is said that Paul sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus, and in the second passage he calls them "overseers," which is the literal translation of the word which is elsewhere translated "bishops." Cf. Phil. 1:1. The interchangeable use of the two titles under discussion may also be seen in Titus 1:5, 7.

The term "pastor" is another term, used only once in the New Testament (Eph. 4:11), which seemingly designated the same office as elder and bishop.

It seems to have been the rule in New Testament churches to have a plurality of elders, (as 'a rule', then, and not, to rule, or to "lord over God's heritage", etc., see THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH, below) as is plainly seen in the case of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17), and in the case of the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1); and as seems to be indicated in the case of other churches from Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5.

The chief reason, perhaps, for having a plurality of elders in New Testament churches is that it was customary to have only one church in any city, with this one church likely having a number of preaching places over the city. A graded ministry is unknown in the New Testament. A bishop was an officer in a particular church, and not an overseer of the churches of a given district, as is the case today in some denominations.

2. DEACONS Cf. Acts 6:1-8; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13.

Chapter 30, The Doctrine of the Church
VI. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.

New Testament churches were independent and democratic in government.

This fact is seen in:

1. THE SELECTION OF MATTHIAS. While the method used in the selection of Matthias is not the usual method of voting employed today, Luke's account (Acts 1:23-26) implies that the entire church participated in his selection. "They appointed" (vs. 23), "they prayed" (vs. 24), and "they gave forth their lots." The entire group of one hundred and twenty (vs. 15) is the most natural antecedent of the pronoun "they" in these expressions.

2. THE SELECTION OF THE SEVEN DEACONS. When the need arose for these seven servants of the church, the apostles did not assume the authority of appointing them, but "called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, "It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (Acts 6:2, 3). "And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose" the seven men whose names are given. The multitude of the disciples, that is, the church, did the choosing.

3. THE SETTING APART OF BARNABAS AND SAUL. In this we see the independence of New Testament churches. The church at Antioch, although it was much younger than the church at Jerusalem, acted in this matter independent of the church at Jerusalem and without so much as consulting the church at Jerusalem. Cf. Acts 13:1-3. Neither did the church consult the apostles.

4. THE EXCLUSION AND RESTORATION OF THE INCESTUOUS MAN AT CORINTH. Paul addressed the church as a whole about this matter. Cf. 1 Cor. 5. And in his recommendation concerning the restoration of this man (2 Cor. 2:6) he speaks of his punishment as having been inflicted by "many," literally, the greater part or majority. This distinctly implies that the church was democratic in the exclusion of the man. It was not done by the elders, nor by the deacons, but by the many or the majority.

5. THE SELECTION OF TRAVELING COMPANIONS FOR PAUL Cf. 1 Cor. 16:3; 1 Cor. 8:19, 23. Paul recognized the right of the churches to have their own representatives accompany him in his travels among the churches in making up the offering for the saints at Jerusalem. We, no doubt, have these "messengers of the church" mentioned in Acts 20:4. Thus Paul was not a lord over God's heritage, but recognized their right of self-government. He speaks of these brethren as having been selected by the churches. This implies that the churches acted as bodies in their selection. They were not appointed by the elders. The only way a church can act as a body is by some method of voting. Any proper method of voting is an expression of democracy.

6. THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE WHOLE CHURCH TO-

(1) Maintain Unity of Action. See Rom. 12:16; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4.3; Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet. 3:8. Strong very justly remarks on these passages that they are not "mere counsels to passive submission), such as might be given under a hierarchy, or to the members of a society of the Jesuits; they are counsels to cooperation and to harmonious judgment."

(2) Preserve Pure Doctrine and Practice. 1 Tim. 3.15; Jude 3. See also the exhortations to the churches in Rev. 2 and 3. (3) Guard the Ordinances. 1 Cor. 11:2, 23, 24. And we may conclude by saying that in no instance in the New Testament do we see the independency and democracy of the church contradicted.

 

[37818]

Well, based on the seven letters to the seven churches they were single pastor led churches.

 

[JonC]

We read in Revelation 2:15, "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which thing I hate." Without being positive what this doctrine was, I think the meaning lies in the name.

The Nicolaitans viewed the body as irrelevant, therefore what they did in the flesh did not matter. This is normally connected with sexual immorality and practicing the pagan rituals that were common at the time.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Philippians 1:1. 'Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints who are in Philippi, with the bishops ['overseers'] and deacons.' So there was a plurality of overseers in the church at Philippi. That an 'overseer' is the same as 'elder' is shown in Acts of the Apostles 20:17-18, 28. 'From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church, and when they had come to him he said to them...............Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.'

 

[Alan Gross]

Well, based on the seven letters to the seven churches they were single pastor led churches.

The STARS in His RIGHT HAND!!!

 

[Alan Gross]

Philippians 1:1. 'Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints who are in Philippi, with the bishops ['overseers'] and deacons.' So there was a plurality of overseers in the church at Philippi. That an 'overseer' is the same as 'elder' is shown in Acts of the Apostles 20:17-18, 28. 'From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church, and when they had come to him he said to them...............Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.'

Yes, there was often a plurality of elders-bishops (pasters) & deacons, then.

And even now. The idea of them being related to church government is whether they have "the say" over the church body, or whether they each have one vote in a democratic fashion.

Our church has one pastor and ten deacons who preach if needed, and even the very spiritual song leader has preached a full message several times.

We all each have one vote, however, regarding church issues of business.

(many 'small things' have already been voted on to be left to the pastor's discretion, etc.)
...

The blue writing in my posts is generally mine, as here, in case I don't note it).

It seems to have been the rule in New Testament churches to have a plurality of elders, (as 'a rule', then, and not, to rule, or to "lord over God's heritage", etc., see THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH

The chief reason, perhaps, for having a plurality of elders in New Testament churches is that it was customary to have only one church in any city, with this one church likely having a number of preaching places over the city. A graded ministry is unknown in the New Testament. A bishop was an officer in a particular church, and not an overseer of the churches of a given district, as is the case today in some denominations.

 

[Alan Gross]

We read in Revelation 2:15, "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which thing I hate."

stuff from: Who Are the Nicolaitans?

Who Are the Nicolaitans?

"Who are the Nicolaitans mentioned in the book of Revelation? What did they believe? Why does God say he HATES them?
Nicolaitans comes from the Greek word meaning "adherent of Nicolas" (Strong's Concordance #G3531) or "destruction of people" (Thayer's Greek Definitions). This second definition is further confirmed when we break down the word Nicolaitans.

"Niko is defined as a conquest or victory over others. The second part, lai, means people. The last part, tes, represents the word "the." Taken together, the word Nicolaitans means someone who is a conqueror or victor, a person who destroys the people....

"...In a church setting, these people attempted to set themselves up to rule over the lives and faith of other church members. They tried to force others to submit to their arbitrary position of authority that God never gave them and which he hates! The Apostle Peter warned that leaders among the church were not to dominate over the faith of others but rather exhort them to do right.

"The elders who are among you I exhort, even as a fellow elder . . . Feed the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight not by compulsion, but willingly; not in fondness of dishonest gain, but with an eager attitude; Not as exercising lordship over your possessions; but by being examples to the flock of God" (1Peter 5:1 - 3)....

"...The hierarchical teachings of the Nicolaitans openly reared its head during the Catholic Church's Council of Trent that was held between 1545 and 1563. During the council they stated, "If anyone shall say that there is not in the Catholic Church a hierarchy established by the divine ordination, consisting of bishops, presbyters and ministers, let him be anathema (a person who is to be detested and excommunicated)."

An evil structure

"...The entire top-down church administrative structure of the Catholics, as well as many other churches, owes its survival to maintaining what the Nicolaitans taught. Many "Christian" groups and denominations promote the belief in a strict church hierarchy where control over the people must be maintained and respected. The system they promote feeds on competition and strife among believers in order to take advantage of them at any time.

"The Lord not only demands repentance from those who believe the doctrine of the Nicolaitans but also threatens severe punishment if they do not. God warns those who practice such lies, "Remember therefore from where you have fallen . . . or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place" (Revelation 2:5). May the warning be heeded!"

Looks like if a church begins with a lampstand, via their initiation by the New Teatament pattern, they are able to lose it, by practicing Elder-Rule, etc.

 

[Alan Gross]

New Testament churches were independent and democratic in government.

this is TMI, (my bad) but an expanded notion of our stance against elder rule, etc.
(down at the bottom of this, in blue.)
at: Our Articles of Faith – Bryan Station Baptist Church

"XIV. THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH

"We believe that a New Testament church is a local, visible, congregation of scripturally baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel;

"observing the ordinances instituted by Christ its only Head;

"governed by His laws alone;

"that such an assembly is the body of Christ in its locality, with which all the regenerated should affiliate, for this is the only kind of true church in the world today;

"that its officers of ordination are pastors and deacons; that each assembly has the absolute right to self-government as led by the Holy Spirit, free from any interference whatsoever from any organization, group, convention, association or individual;

"that it is scriptural for assemblies to cooperate with each other for the furtherance of the gospel and the doctrines of the Word of God, but that each church is the sole human judge of the measure and method of its cooperation;

"that only sound New Testament Baptist churches today preserve the essential apostolic faith and practice;

"that Christ's promise to build His church has been fulfilled in only these kind of churches, the first of which He organized during His earthly ministry and gave to it, and to others that should descend from it the Great Commission;

"that these true churches on earth alone possess Divine authority;

"Therefore, we brand as unscriptural open communion, alien baptism, pulpit affiliation with heretical ministers, mission boards, ecumenicism, unionism, modernism, modern conventionalism and associationism, one-church dictatorship, preacher-dictatorship and all kindred evils arising from these practices."

"(Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:41, 47; I Cor. 12:13;Eph 4:5; Acts 2:42; I Cor. 5:12-13; II Cor. 8:5; Matt. 28:19-20; Eph 1:20-23;5:23; Gal. 6:2; James 4:12; I Cor. 12:27; Eph 4:11; Phil.1:1; I Tim. 3:8-13; Acts 15:1-31; II Cor. 8:23-24; 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15-16; John 1; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:18)"

 

[Van]

Well, based on the seven letters to the seven churches they were single pastor led churches.

We need to consider and test the spirits to see if what they say meshes with scripture. Compare Revelation 2:1 and Acts 20:17. The church at Ephesus had "Elders" plural, and was not a single pastor led church.

Act 14:23
When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they had believed.​

 

[Salty]

So if churches are to have several elders -
and if they dont - are they not a proper/true church?

 

[Alan Gross]

So if churches are to have several elders -
and if they dont - are they not a proper/true church?

From my understanding, in MHO, as it seems to me from the Bible, having elders or not is not the issue. Elder can be synonymous with bishop or paster, I believe.

The word 'elder' just often gets used in the term 'elder rule' to describe a group of men ruling over the other members.

So, the issue would not how many elders or bishops, or pastors there are in the membership, but the extent of their authority.

A.) For there to be a 'dictatorial'(?), top-down authority that the elder(s) holds over the membership is the issue, which would be entirely different than a purely congregational government philosophy.

B.) With the congregational government each member is to be equally under the rule and in subjection to The Head of the local church assembly, which is Jesus.

Each member, including all elders, bishops, pastors, etc., have one vote each.

That maintains everyone's dependence on The Lordship of Christ and the Leading of the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Bob, however, views that as 'mob rule', however, so there that is.

C.) I would think that the threat of mob rule would come into play in the event there is an imbalance of unregenerate on hand, as members, that could throw a vote to take the building and the treasury out from under God's people.

That is just my conjecture on coming up with that as part of it since there had been an epidemic of that kind of move by many outside influences that became church-spitters (Anti-emancipation, Cambellism/ baptismal 'regeneration', anti-missionary factions, etc.{new, non-baptistic-like teachings}, through the 1800s and 1900s).

This is said by C.D. Cole,
in a book our church has published for quite some time.

DEFINITIONS OF DOCTRINE VOLUME III
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH by C. D. Cole

CHAPTER II THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

B. ITS OFFICERS.

"(3) Pastors and Teachers. These are local and are confined to a single church.

It is the writer's opinion that this refers to one office, the pastor who is also the teacher in the church. Others may teach, but they are not a commissioned officer in the church.

The text we are following says nothing about elders or bishops, but from other scriptures, we learn that they belong to the same office as pastors and teachers.

As an apostolic delegate, Titus was left by the apostle Paul in Crete to complete the organization of the churches and to ordain elders,

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" (Titus 1:5).

And in giving their qualifications these elders are called bishops

"For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;" (Titus 1:7).

And in Acts 20:28 the elders from Ephesus are enjoined by Paul to

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, (bishops), to feed (pastor, shepherd) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

And so these elders were to do the work of an overseer and pastor in their respective churches. And in I Tim. II a bishop must be apt to teach.

So the spiritual leader in the church must be able to care for the church as an overseer and teacher.

Baptist churches have leaders but no lords.

"Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen" (I Peter 5:14).


"...C. ITS AUTONOMY AND INDEPENDENCE. The churches of the New Testament were autonomous (self-governing) and independent.

Each church managed its own affairs.

No other church or groups of churches had any authority over it.

Each church was responsible only to Christ, its Head.

Each church dismissed and received members, and exercised discipline over them.

Each church determined its own activity and made its own program.

At the same time, cooperative relations were entered into by New Testament churches.

There are many examples of this.

See Rom. 15:26,27; II Cor. 8th and 9th chapters; Acts 15th chapter.

And so it is today, Baptist churches cooperate in many enterprises.

But in and through it all each church acts voluntarily and maintains its independence.

The writer has a way of saying that the churches of Christ are dependent, independent, and interdependent.

Each church is dependent upon God for success; it is independent, in that it is free from the dominance of any other body*; and it is interdependent, in that it works with other churches in kingdom enterprises.

No church has the right to be a local church in its interests and labor (without preaching the Gospel, per the Great Commission, etc.).

It must look beyond its own doors to other fields of labor.

Any church that does not have missions on its heart has the death rattle in its throat."

*So the local church assembly would be free from the dominance of any other body, association, conference, mission board, etc., with their own structure of government making decisions on materials or money, or preachers to supply various local churches, or the mission field, etc., and free of the dominance of 'elders' that would make decisions not already voted on by the assembly, etc., or being able to trump or vote down the 'laity'.

Those types of arraignments immediately act to usurp the Headship of Jesus and is why I believe Jesus says that 'ruling over the laity', which is what Nicholaitans seem to mean, in a hierarchical structure is something He would hate.

The BIG question becomes (for those who believe such things and care about them, before God) is that provided a local church body is structured by New Testament authority and pattern and does have Jesus in the midst of her** and Jesus having the pastors or messengers or stars in His Right Hand and are considered by Him as a Candlestick in which He blesses His special presence, guidance, and teaching ministry, as the pillar and ground of the truth, DOES that local church assembly risk losing or actually lose their Candlestick, as Jesus warns, when they supplant His Direct Headship with a 'board of elders', association, conference, etc., etc.?

**("Where two or three are gathered together", specifically refers to "in My Name", i.e., 'by His Authority, in His Biblical, New Testament Pattern', as in any number of Old Testament passages, which say, "In My Name" when talking about the structured worship of God, and isn't referring to just any random gathering of God's children. Matthew 18's context is church discipline).

 

[Logos1560]

Well, based on the seven letters to the seven churches they were single pastor led churches.

Thomas Forrester maintained in 1699 that “the collective sense of the term angel is most suitable to Scripture” (Hierarchical Bishops, p. 70). Forrester asserted: “As one singular, so all the individuals of the church, both members and officers, are represented by one candlestick; and why not also, all the ministers, by one angel?” (Ibid.). Forrester contended: “Ephesus had many angels (Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 5:17) of equal authority, who were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, and set over that Church accordingly, and they are spoken to, in the plural, though the Angel is named in the singular number” (p. 72).

In his 1689 Exposition of the Whole Book of the Revelation, Hanserd Knollys wrote: “The word [angel] in all these seven epistles, is a noun collective, comprehending all the Bishops and Presbyters, called Elders, Acts 20:17, in this Church of Ephesus, so in all the other churches of Christ in Asia, and elsewhere” (p. 19). John Brown maintained that Jesus “addresses the angel of Smyrna, as a plurality of persons” [Rev. 2:10--”ye“] (Letters, p. 44). Thomas Smyth wrote: “There can be no reasonable doubt, that, by the term angel, we are to understand either the presbyters collectively, or their presiding officer, or moderator, to whom this name was applied, in the order of the Jewish synagogue” (Presbytery, p. 275). W. D. Killen noted that “the office of the angel of the synagogue had, in fact, no resemblance whatever to that of a prelate” (Ancient Church, p. 267). Killen maintained that “the angel was not the chief ruler of the synagogue” (Ibid.). William Wisner wrote: “There are strong reasons for supposing that the term angel, in the figurative language of the Apocalypse, denoted the whole body of presbyters connected with that church” (Prelacy, p. 59).

Three of the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, and Great Bibles) had the rendering “messenger of the congregation” at some of the verses (Rev. 2:1, 12, 18; 3:1, 14) instead of “angel of the church.” James Corcoran contended that “the Presbyterian Bibles of England had such a hatred of prelacy, that in spite of Beza, and their Puritan English prototype of Geneva [1560] they (in their editions of 1562, 1577, 1579] translated ‘messengers’ for ‘angels’” (American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1880, p. 712).

The KJV translated the same Greek word as “messenger” at Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, and Luke 7:27.

 

[37818]

Thomas Forrester maintained in 1699 that “the collective sense of the term angel is most suitable to Scripture” (Hierarchical Bishops, p. 70). Forrester asserted: “As one singular, so all the individuals of the church, both members and officers, are represented by one candlestick; and why not also, all the ministers, by one angel?” (Ibid.). Forrester contended: “Ephesus had many angels (Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 5:17) of equal authority, who were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, and set over that Church accordingly, and they are spoken to, in the plural, though the Angel is named in the singular number” (p. 72).

In his 1689 Exposition of the Whole Book of the Revelation, Hanserd Knollys wrote: “The word [angel] in all these seven epistles, is a noun collective, comprehending all the Bishops and Presbyters, called Elders, Acts 20:17, in this Church of Ephesus, so in all the other churches of Christ in Asia, and elsewhere” (p. 19). John Brown maintained that Jesus “addresses the angel of Smyrna, as a plurality of persons” [Rev. 2:10--”ye“] (Letters, p. 44). Thomas Smyth wrote: “There can be no reasonable doubt, that, by the term angel, we are to understand either the presbyters collectively, or their presiding officer, or moderator, to whom this name was applied, in the order of the Jewish synagogue” (Presbytery, p. 275). W. D. Killen noted that “the office of the angel of the synagogue had, in fact, no resemblance whatever to that of a prelate” (Ancient Church, p. 267). Killen maintained that “the angel was not the chief ruler of the synagogue” (Ibid.). William Wisner wrote: “There are strong reasons for supposing that the term angel, in the figurative language of the Apocalypse, denoted the whole body of presbyters connected with that church” (Prelacy, p. 59).

Three of the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, and Great Bibles) had the rendering “messenger of the congregation” at some of the verses (Rev. 2:1, 12, 18; 3:1, 14) instead of “angel of the church.” James Corcoran contended that “the Presbyterian Bibles of England had such a hatred of prelacy, that in spite of Beza, and their Puritan English prototype of Geneva [1560] they (in their editions of 1562, 1577, 1579] translated ‘messengers’ for ‘angels’” (American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1880, p. 712).

The KJV translated the same Greek word as “messenger” at Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, and Luke 7:27.

The term translated angel, meaning messenger is not in dispute. Rather the simple fact that an individual is addressed at the beginning of each of those seven letters as being the responsible party. I understand this to show those seven churches to be a single leader churches.

 

[Logos1560]

I understand this to show those seven churches to be a single leader churches.

The quotations provided show that others including some in the 1600's have understood it differently.

 

[Van]

So if churches are to have several elders -
and if they dont - are they not a proper/true church?

How many called out (i.e born anew) believers does it take to constitute an assembly of believers, a church?

In order to have a "plurality of Elders" you need three, as with two the vote could lack a plurality.

And it would seem a tad top heavy if the leaders did not have a flock, so another three or more members would seem necessary to fit the model. So congregations smaller than six or lacking a plurality of Elders would be great, worthwhile and necessary to spread Christ's ministry, but they would not quite fit the NT model. But should we hurl disparagement, i.e. "why that is not a true church" or things along that line? Nope, but we should encourage leaders of these small groups to establish relationships with Elders of other assembles of like minded believers, to provide "accountability." Look at the example of Apollos, Acts of the Apostles 18:24-28