Oneness Pentecostalism
The Origins of Wellspring Church’s Apostolic Pentecostal Doctrine
-
Trinitarian in language, Oneness in theology: Although Wellspring Church strongly claims to be Trinitarian, its core doctrines and requirements align closely with Oneness Pentecostal theology.
-
From Azusa Street to Oneness Theology: Oneness Pentecostalism emerged after the Azusa Street Revival, spread through regions like Ohio, and became the foundation for Wellspring Church’s doctrinal system.
-
Borrowed structure, altered theology: Wellspring Church’s foundational teaching was constructed by Norman James, who layered Trinitarian language over an underlying founder-led Oneness theology.
Trinitarian in language, Oneness in theology
Although Wellspring Church strongly identifies as Trinitarian, its core doctrines, teaching and practices consistently align with Oneness Pentecostal theology and churches. For this reason, theologians describe groups like Wellspring Church as functionally Oneness. Wellspring Church uses Trinitarian language but operates within a Oneness theological framework.
For outsiders considering Wellspring Church - this is not just another local church in the community with various non-essential doctrinal differences. Wellspring Church's foundational teachings are considered heretical by Trinitarian Christian theologians and churches. Many Christian apologists refer to Oneness groups as a theological cult, especially in situations like Wellspring Church, where the church claims to possess the only “true” formula to be born again and only access to the kingdom of God. Others avoid the label “cult” and instead describe such groups as theologically heterodox.
For insiders who have grown up in Wellspring Church - it’s our gentle suggestion that Wellspring’s doctrine shares meaningful similarities with doctrinal positions developed by others. In a church like Wellspring, it’s easy to feel as though you’ve grown up at the very apex of spiritual history - and perhaps that’s how it was presented to you. But you deserve to understand where these ideas came from, and the people and movements that shaped them.
History of Oneness Pentecostalism
Oneness Pentecostalism, also called Apostolic Pentecostalism, emerged out of the early Pentecostal revivals that followed the Azusa Street Revival of 1906–1909 in Los Angeles. While the revival itself affirmed a traditional Trinitarian understanding of God, it also created an atmosphere of experimentation, new revelation, and theological exploration. In this environment, some ministers began to question older doctrinal categories and reexamine passages about baptism and the name of Jesus. This ferment set the stage for a major doctrinal shift within Pentecostalism in the years that followed.
The spark that ignited the Oneness movement came in 1913, when Canadian minister R. E. McAlister preached at the Arroyo Seco Camp Meeting in California and suggested that the apostles baptized converts “in the name of Jesus” rather than using the Trinitarian formula. His remarks were not immediately intended to challenge the doctrine of the Trinity, but others seized upon his comments as a revelation. Ministers such as Frank J. Ewart and Glenn Cook developed the idea further, eventually rejecting the traditional Trinity and arguing that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” were simply different manifestations of the one Person, Jesus Christ.
By 1916, the controversy split the young Pentecostal movement, and those who accepted this new understanding formed separate “Apostolic” or “Jesus Name” churches. These groups would later develop into the Oneness Pentecostal denominations known today, distinguished by Jesus-name baptism and a multi-stage new-birth theology that diverges sharply from historic Trinitarian Christianity.
During the 1950s and 1960s, Ohio, and Cleveland in particular, was one of the most active regions in the nation for Oneness Pentecostal churches and revival activity. Several major Apostolic and Jesus-Name organizations had strong footholds in the state during these decades, including the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW), the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ (PAJC), and numerous independent Apostolic congregations that later merged into the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI).
Cleveland hosted thriving Oneness congregations, frequent evangelistic campaigns, and influential pastors who helped spread Jesus-name baptism, tongues-as-evidence, and multi-stage new-birth teaching throughout the region. Anyone participating in Ohio’s Pentecostal or holiness circles during this period would have been surrounded by Oneness preaching, literature, and revival culture.
Nearly every doctrine taught at Wellspring Church today was developed within a very short period - between 1913 and 1916 - during the formation of the Oneness Pentecostal movement. These teachings did not originate at Bethesda Missionary Temple, nor within historic Trinitarian Pentecostalism. They arose from a small group of ministers who broke away from the Trinitarian Pentecostal revival that followed Azusa Street.
On top of this existing Oneness framework, founder Norman H. James constructed his own distinctive baptismal formula and emphases. This was a common pattern among independent Apostolic preachers who added their own “special” teaching to the wider movement.
The core architects of Oneness doctrine were:
Frank J. Ewart - developed the full Oneness understanding of God (1914)
Glenn Cook - rebaptized ministers in Jesus’ name, spreading the new doctrine (1914)
G.T. Haywood - systematized multi-stage new-birth teaching (1915–16)
Early leaders of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW) formalized the doctrines. By late 1916, the system was fully created, and the split with Trinitarian Pentecostals was complete.
Oneness Pentecostal doctrine creates a natural separation from the wider Body of Christ because it rejects the historic doctrine of the Trinity and replaces the traditional gospel with a multi-step system to becoming born again that only its own churches can administer. By teaching that being born again is completed through Jesus-name baptism and speaking in tongues, requirements not recognized by any Trinitarian Christian church, Oneness groups often conclude that most Christians outside their church are not truly born again or part of God's kingdom.
This creates a theological boundary that isolates Oneness believers from the larger Christian community, since fellowship with other churches becomes spiritually limited or discouraged. As a result, Oneness doctrine does more than differ on secondary issues - it establishes an entirely separate understanding of God, salvation, and Christian identity, positioning itself apart from the shared faith of the global Christian Church.
Wellspring doctrine aligns with Oneness Pentecostal theology
Wellspring Church’s alignment with Oneness Pentecostal theology becomes unmistakable when examining their teaching and practice.
1. Water Baptism in Jesus Name
Years Developed: 1913–1914
Developers: R.E. McAlister, Frank J. Ewart, Glenn Cook
First presented publicly in 1913
Although Wellspring Church publicly professes belief in the Trinity, they require believers who were already baptized as adults in the name of the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to undergo re-baptism “in Jesus’ name for the circumcision of heart and the remission of sins.” This mirrors the practice of Oneness Pentecostal churches, which routinely re-baptize Trinitarian Christians because they reject Trinitarian baptism as valid. Norman James insisted on his specific formula, making it a central requirement of his system.
Both Wellspring Church and Oneness Pentecostalism require such re-baptism despite the direct command of Jesus Christ to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” To defend this practice, they claim that Jesus was speaking in a kind of coded or veiled language and that only they possess the hidden insight needed to unlock the “true” meaning behind His words - namely, that baptizing “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” really means baptizing in the name or authority of Jesus alone.
This position is not merely a difference in wording, but a departure from the historic Christian understanding of God as Triune. In Scripture, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share one divine essence. Jesus Christ is fully God (John 1:1; Colossians 2:9), yet He is not the Father or the Spirit. His command in Matthew 28:19 reflects that reality.
This understanding of God as one in essence and three in persons was not developed casually, but through sustained reflection on Scripture in the early church, precisely to preserve the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
One cannot affirm the Triune God as revealed in Scripture while simultaneously treating Christ’s Trinitarian command as incomplete, veiled, or in need of correction. To collapse the baptismal formula into “Jesus only,” or to treat His words as coded and in need of reinterpretation, is to set aside His explicit instruction and to redefine the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. This teaching, central to Oneness Pentecostalism, replaces a direct command of Jesus with a constructed, esoteric reinterpretation.
While most Oneness Pentecostal churches insist on baptism “in Jesus’ name,” some independent or founder-led Oneness-derived movements go further, treating a particular wording or baptism performed within their own authority structure as necessary for a baptism to be considered valid. When James departed from the standard Oneness formula, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” and introduced his own wording - “in Jesus’ name for the circumcision of the heart and remission of sin,” a phrase found nowhere in Scripture - he moved not only outside historic Christian teaching, but even further beyond established Oneness Pentecostal doctrine.
2. "Born of the Holy Spirit"
Year: 1914–1916
Developers: Early PAW teachers
Oneness teachers reinterpreted Acts to say the Spirit does not indwell until tongues.
Wellspring Church teaches that the Holy Spirit does not indwell a believer until they receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This view is a distinctively Oneness Pentecostal doctrine and differs sharply from Trinitarian Pentecostal teaching. According to the Trinitarian Pentecostal denomination The Assemblies of God: “The Spirit already indwells all believers. It is important to stress that the Holy Spirit is not external to a believer not yet baptized in the Spirit. The Spirit works internally in a repentant and believing person to effect the new birth” (see AOG Position Paper on Baptism in the Holy Spirit).
The same position paper states that the distinguishing features of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit are:
(1) it is theologically and experientially distinguishable from and subsequent to the new birth,
(2) it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, and
(3) it is distinct in purpose from the Spirit’s work of regenerating the heart and life of a repentant sinner.
Trinitarian Christianity teaches that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine Person who indwells every believer at the moment of genuine faith in Christ (Ephesians 1:13–14). The Spirit’s indwelling is regarded as the believer’s assurance of salvation, not as a later, demonstrable experience, but as the immediate and permanent result of God’s saving grace.
In Oneness Pentecostal theology, the biblical phrase “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5–8) is interpreted as referring specifically to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which they believe must be evidenced by speaking in tongues. In this system, a believer is not considered to be indwelt by the Spirit - or truly “born of the Spirit” - until they demonstrate tongues.
This teaching collapses the historic Christian distinction between being born again (the Spirit’s inward, saving work at the moment of faith) and Spirit-baptism (a later empowering or gifting). Instead, Oneness theology makes tongues the required sign of the Spirit’s indwelling and the decisive moment of being born again. As a result, being “born of the Spirit” becomes a human-recognizable event dependent on a verifiable spiritual manifestation, rather than the immediate, sovereign work of God affirmed across Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions.
3. Spirit "with but not in"
Year: 1914–1916
Developers: Early Apostolic ministers
Codified as a way to explain the denial of the Spirit’s indwelling at faith.
Wellspring Church teaches that at the moment of faith the Holy Spirit is only “with” a believer but not “in” them until they receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues. This is a standard Oneness Pentecostal doctrine, widely taught in Apostolic and UPCI circles. In historic Trinitarian Christianity, the Holy Spirit indwells the believer immediately upon union with Christ. To teach otherwise places Wellspring’s doctrine firmly outside the bounds of Trinitarian Christianity. The “with but not in” distinction is a hallmark of Oneness theology and shows that Wellspring Church's system is functionally Oneness despite its claims to be Trinitarian.
4. Forgiveness vs. Remission of sin
Year: 1915–1920
Developers: Various Oneness writers; strengthened by PAW teaching
Not found in historic Christianity; unique to Oneness circles.
Wellspring Church teaches a separation between the “forgiveness” and “remission" of sin. This is a uniquely Oneness Pentecostal doctrine and is found nowhere in historic Christian theology or any Trinitarian tradition. In the New Testament, both “forgiveness” and “remission” translate the same Greek word 'aphesis', which refers to a single act of divine release and pardon granted through Christ. By dividing what Scripture treats as one reality, Wellspring adopts a distinctly Oneness Pentecostal interpretation that stands outside the shared consensus of the global Christian Church.
5. Two types of tongues
Year: 1914–1916
Developers: Oneness ministers diverging from Azusa’s acceptance that not all speak in tongues
Became a defining doctrine by 1916.
Oneness Pentecostal groups explain away Paul’s statement “Do all speak in tongues?” (1 Cor. 12:30) by dividing tongues into two categories: a public gift that only some possess, and a required “initial evidence” prayer language that all believers must speak to be born again. This distinction is absent from historic Christian teaching, from any plain reading of the biblical text, and from the writings of any New Testament author. Scripture nowhere suggests two different kinds of tongues; rather, it presents tongues as a single spiritual gift distributed according to the Spirit’s sovereign will. The two-tiered framework is a uniquely Oneness construct designed to preserve their claim that every believer must speak in tongues, despite Paul’s clear teaching that not all do.
Wellspring Church's foundational doctrine is Oneness
Although Wellspring Church publicly professes belief in the Trinity, all of its foundational, functional doctrines align with Oneness Pentecostal theology. Nearly every meaningful area of its teaching - baptism “in Jesus’ name,” the denial of the Spirit’s indwelling at faith, a multi-stage understanding of being born again, the separation of forgiveness and remission, the requirement that all believers speak in tongues, and the “with but not in” framework - matches standard Oneness Pentecostal doctrine and departs from historic Christian belief.
These conclusions are reached not because Scripture teaches them plainly, but because individual verses are assembled to support a prior doctrinal system rather than read within the unified witness of Scripture as a whole. In each case, authority and assurance are relocated away from Christ Himself and placed in prescribed responses, formulas, or institutional control, rather than in the finished work of Christ and His ongoing mediation.
Trinitarian Language Masking a Oneness Understanding of God
Wellspring Church employs the Trinitarian language of “God in three Persons,” but redefines the term person in a way that departs from its historic Trinitarian theological meaning. Rather than affirming three eternally distinct ontological persons who share one undivided divine essence, Wellspring’s doctrine effectively recasts Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct functional expressions centered in the single person of Jesus.
In historic Trinitarian theology, the term “person” does not refer to a role, title, name, voice or manifestation, but to a real, eternal center of personal existence within the one divine being. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three ways God acts, but three who eternally are. If these distinctions exist only in how God acts or is described, and not in who God eternally is, then the doctrine is no longer Trinitarian in the historic Christian sense.
As a result, a Oneness, or modalistic, understanding of God emerges beneath Wellspring Church's language and is evidenced in its doctrine. In Trinitarian theology, ontological refers to who God is eternally - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as truly distinct persons - while functional refers to how God acts or is revealed in creation and redemption.
For example, Norman James frequently used a personal analogy to explain the nature of God: “I sign checks as Norman James, but I have the titles of father and son.” This illustration, though simple and memorable, reflects a classic Oneness (or modalistic) understanding of God. In this framework, “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are not eternally distinct divine persons, but different titles or roles belonging to a single divine individual. His analogy describes roles or titles God takes on, rather than real, eternal distinctions within God Himself.
Within historic Trinitarian Christianity, God is not three gods, nor one person wearing three different labels; He is one undivided divine essence eternally shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons who relate to one another in love from all eternity. James’s analogy collapses this relational Triune life into a solitary being with shifting titles - a view the early church repeatedly rejected.
While James presented this analogy as a helpful clarification, it likely reflected the theological framework he himself had received during his early life in Ohio, where Oneness Pentecostalism had a notable presence during his formative years. Whether through direct exposure or through broader currents of teaching, this modalistic framework shaped the way he spoke about God and contributed to the doctrinal foundations he established at Wellspring Church.
Wellspring Church often uses the term “Lord” when addressing God, but the meaning carried by that word is shaped by their Oneness understanding rather than by historic Christian faith. In Trinitarian Christianity, “Lord” most often refers specifically to the Lord Jesus Christ - the eternal Son, the second Person of the Trinity - who shares one divine nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
But within a Oneness framework, “Lord” functions as a generic title for the one divine Person who manifests as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rather than referring to the Lord Jesus Christ as the second Person of the Trinity who shares one divine nature with the Father and the Spirit. In practice, this use of “Lord” resembles the Old Testament usage of YHWH - a single divine Person "LORD God" acting without revealed distinctions - rather than the New Testament revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit acting in relationship.
As a result, the term "Lord" sounds familiar and scriptural, yet it carries a very different theological weight. The relational richness of addressing Jesus as Lord, the Son who reveals the Father and sends the Spirit, is replaced by a solitary divine figure with shifting roles. The words are the same, but the reality behind them has been redefined.
When leaders at Wellspring Church pray using phrases like “Father God,” their sincerity is not in question. They genuinely believe they are addressing the Father. Yet because Wellspring’s underlying doctrinal framework reflects a Oneness understanding of God, the meaning given to the word “Father” differs from the way historic Christianity has understood the first Person of the Trinity.
In Trinitarian faith, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in eternal relationship with one another as distinct divine Persons. In Wellspring’s teaching, however, these names function more as different expressions of Jesus Himself. As a result, the language of “Father God” can sound Trinitarian while carrying a different theological weight - shaped not by the historic doctrine of the Trinity, but by a modalistic understanding of God’s identity.
Modalism is not new; it is an ancient teaching that surfaced in the early centuries of the church under names like Sabellianism and Monarchianism. Far from embracing it, the early church decisively rejected modalism as a distortion of God’s nature - because it collapsed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into a single role-playing deity. From the beginning, Christians confessed a Triune God, as reflected in their earliest creeds, their worship, and their consistent practice of baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
The early church recognized that denying the real distinctions within the Godhead undermined the gospel itself. For this reason, modalism was not seen as a harmless misunderstanding but as a serious deviation, and the church stood firmly and unanimously on the truth of the Trinity.
Although Wellspring Church’s doctrinal statement uses Trinitarian language and avoids explicitly describing God as a single Person with multiple titles, its functional theology remains easily recognizable as Oneness in structure. This is evident in the doctrinal requirements that surround being born again and water baptism: the insistence on baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” for the remission of sins, the teaching that water baptism effects “circumcision of heart,” and the belief that receiving the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues completes the process of becoming born again. These elements, taken together, match classic Oneness Pentecostal theology rather than historic Trinitarian Christianity.
Different Theologies, Different Gospels
Growing up at Wellspring Church, we never questioned that we were Trinitarian. We were repeatedly taught that Wellspring faithfully upheld the historic doctrine of the Trinity. Yet the Trinity functioned largely as a stand-alone doctrine rather than as the theological foundation of salvation and spiritual regeneration. Being born again was presented as a sequence of prescribed responses rather than as the unified saving work of the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit.
Only much later did many of us discover that, throughout the history of the Christian church, the doctrine of God and the doctrine of salvation have been understood as inseparable. The Triune God is not merely the object of Christian confession; He is the God who creates, redeems, regenerates, and saves. In historic Christian theology, the doctrine of the Trinity is not an isolated doctrine about the nature of God. It is the foundation from which the church has understood the whole work of salvation, including spiritual regeneration. A different understanding of God inevitably produces a different understanding of the gospel.
Within a Oneness theological framework, the unified work of the Triune God is replaced by a series of distinct responses that correspond to different aspects of God's activity. Repentance is associated with the Father's work of conviction, water baptism in Jesus' name with the Son's work in the remission of sins, and Spirit baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues with the Holy Spirit's work of empowerment. What historic Trinitarian Christianity understands as the one inseparable work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit thus becomes a sequence of identifiable stages through which the believer must pass. In this framework, being born again is no longer understood as the immediate, unified work of the Triune God received through faith, but as a process completed through successive outward responses.
In contrast, a Trinitarian understanding of God holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-eternal Persons who share one divine nature and act inseparably in every work of God. The calling of the Father, the redemption of the Son, and the regenerating power of the Spirit are not three stages but one unified act. At the moment of faith, the believer is embraced by the Father, united to the Son, and indwelt by the Spirit - without delay, separation, or hierarchy. Because God is one Being in three Persons, not one Person acting in three modes, salvation and being born again is one event, not a set of steps. The believer isn’t required to “activate” God’s different roles with human action; they are welcomed into the life of the Triune God all at once by faith.
The History of Wellspring Church's Oneness Teaching
The Oneness Influence on Wellspring Church's Founder
Norman H. James, the founder and doctrinal architect of Wellspring Church, publicly claimed to be Trinitarian. Yet in his self-authored doctrinal handbook, The Christian Life Series, he constructed a theological system that reflects the core structure of Oneness Pentecostalism. These two systems differ at a foundational level, with incompatible understandings of the nature of God, being born again, water baptism, baptism of the Holy Spirit, remission of sin, and the character of God’s kingdom.
Norman James was raised in the Cleveland area and founded his first church in Ohio, a region deeply influenced by Oneness Pentecostalism throughout the mid-twentieth century. During those years, Ohio - especially Cleveland - was a hub of Apostolic and Jesus-Name revival activity, drawing traveling evangelists and circulating a wide range of Oneness literature and teaching. Norman James began his spiritual journey in a small Pentecostal congregation in Ohio, the 'Church of the Firstborn'.
While no surviving records identify the exact teachings or ministers he encountered there, it is very likely that he absorbed Oneness ideas through the broader environment around him: printed materials, revival meetings, itinerant preachers, and the many Apostolic churches active in the region. Given this context, it is understandable how the core Oneness doctrines later embedded in Wellspring Church could have taken root in his thinking long before he arrived at Bethesda Missionary Temple.
Although Norman James claimed training from Bethesda and continuity with the Beall family and the broader Latter Rain movement, his doctrine quietly diverged in a crucial way. James Beall affirmed the Trinity and appears to have taught baptism in Jesus’ name within a fully Trinitarian framework - not as an exclusive requirement, not as a test of being born again, and certainly not with his own prescribed unique verbal formula.
Norman James, however, imported a Oneness Pentecostal framework into the practice, redefining Jesus-name baptism as the only valid baptism and tying it to his own unique wording for “circumcision of heart” and “remission of sin.” Further, there is no evidence that either Myrtle Beall or James Beall taught the Oneness doctrine of speaking in tongues as a requirement for being born again. That requirement represents a theological and practical departure rather than a continuation of the authority he claimed to inherit from the Beall and Bethesda lineage.
In making these changes, Norman James abandoned the Trinitarian foundation of Bethesda and the broader Latter Rain movement and constructed an entirely different theological system, one derived from Oneness theology rather than Trinitarian Christianity and long rejected by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches as incompatible with the Christian faith.
The term apostolic carried more than one meaning in the movements that shaped Norman James. In Oneness Pentecostalism, “apostolic” commonly referred to the restoration of primitive doctrine and practice, especially Jesus’ Name baptism and related teachings. In Latter Rain circles, however, apostolic restoration also referred to the reemergence of present-day apostles as governing ministries in the church.
Norman James appears to have drawn these strands together into a single framework. He claimed apostolic authority in a Latter Rain sense while teaching doctrines associated with Oneness “apostolic” restoration. The result was not simply a set of doctrines, but a structure in which restored teaching and restored office reinforced one another.
The Construction of Wellspring Church Foundational Oneness Theology
In writing his own doctrinal handbook, Norman James combined elements from multiple theological streams: Trinitarian language from Bethesda, the stylistic framework of Gruits’ catechism, and core doctrines drawn from Oneness literature - to form a system unique to his own interpretation.
Patricia Beall Gruits’ book Understanding God - written in a question-and-answer catechism format - became one of the most widely distributed Pentecostal doctrinal handbooks of the 20th century, with well over a million copies in circulation. Her work was firmly Trinitarian, reflecting the theology of Bethesda Missionary Temple and the broader Latter Rain movement. In her catechism, Gruits explicitly taught the distinction among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the eternal Sonship of Christ, and the traditional Trinitarian baptismal formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This book served as both a doctrinal anchor and a teaching model for many ministers trained through Bethesda’s foundational courses.
Norman James later adopted a similar catechism structure for his own doctrinal handbook, which became the foundational teaching for Wellspring Church. Although he was justly criticized for plagiarizing sections from Gruits’ format and content, the most consequential aspect was not what he repeated, but what he altered. James himself stated on more than one occasion that he collected and filed doctrinal materials he encountered to use as source material for his own writing. Those who knew him during that period recall that he had access to, and made use of, Oneness Pentecostal doctrinal materials. Drawing from these sources, he blended Gruits’ stylistic framework with elements of Oneness doctrine to construct a handbook that reflected his own developing theological system.
Through these changes, James departed sharply from Gruits’ Trinitarian teaching by adding a mandatory Jesus-name baptism requirement - something found in Oneness Pentecostal theology, not in historic Trinitarian Christianity. This created a major theological break: James kept the outward style and structure of Gruits’ respected catechism, but he rewrote the doctrine inside it to reflect a non-Trinitarian framework. As a result, Wellspring Church’s foundational teaching may look similar on the surface to Bethesda’s approach, but it is built on an entirely different theological foundation.
Neither Myrtle Beall, James Beall, Patricia Gruits, Bethesda Missionary Temple nor the broader Latter Rain movement promoted Jesus-name baptism as the only valid baptismal formula. In her 1951 book 'The Plumb Line' - published when Norman James was only eleven years old - Myrtle Beall explicitly affirmed both the Trinitarian baptismal command of Matthew 28:19 and the New Testament references to baptism in Jesus’ name. She wrote, “Water baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost according to the command of Jesus in Matt. 28:19, or as Peter baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) and in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16) is scriptural in each case and is the answer of a good conscience toward God (I Peter 3:21).” Her position was clear: both forms were scriptural and acceptable. This stands in direct contrast to the exclusive Jesus-name baptism later taught by Norman James, a doctrine that did not originate at Bethesda.
Norman James created theological tension in both his speaking and writing by using two fundamentally different descriptions of God. At times he spoke of “God in three Persons,” the essential language of historic Trinitarian theology. Yet when defending Jesus-name baptism as the only valid formula, he shifted into a distinctly Oneness position, treating “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” as different names for the single Person of Jesus Christ. This inconsistency may reflect the blend of Trinitarian and Oneness teaching he was exposed to in his formative years - producing a theological framework that wavered between the two rather than aligning fully with either.
This same inconsistency appeared in his doctrinal handbook, where he referred to the Godhead as three “Persons” in some sections, but elsewhere described God as having three “personalities,” a term closely associated with Oneness or modalistic views. The idea that the three Persons of the Trinity are merely 'names', 'personalities', 'titles' or 'voices' of the one Person Jesus is the foundational belief of Oneness Pentecostal theology.
Why the Oneness Character of Wellspring Church Was Difficult to Recognize
One of the most important facts in understanding Wellspring Church is that Norman H. James never publicly identified himself as Oneness Pentecostal. On the contrary, from the earliest years of his ministry he consistently insisted that he was Trinitarian. Wellspring Church has continued to make the same claim throughout its history.
This conviction is not peripheral to Wellspring's identity; it is one of its defining claims. Throughout the church's history, leaders have emphatically rejected the suggestion that Wellspring is Oneness Pentecostal and have consistently presented the church as standing within historic Trinitarian Christianity.
Members are not taught that they belong to a Oneness church. Rather, they are taught with confidence that Wellspring faithfully preserves the historic Christian doctrine of God. Wellspring's doctrinal statement speaks of "God in three Persons," and its leaders repeatedly assure both members and outsiders that the church is fully Trinitarian rather than Oneness.
For many former members, Wellspring's unwavering insistence that it was Trinitarian made its underlying theological framework difficult to recognize. Because the church consistently identified itself as Trinitarian, few members had any reason to compare its teaching with the theology of the Oneness Pentecostal movement.
While Norman James retained much of the language of historic Trinitarian Christianity, he constructed a different theological system. His teachings on Jesus-name baptism, the nature of being born again, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the distinction between forgiveness and remission of sins, and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit align not with the historic Christian doctrine received through Protestantism, but with the theological system that emerged within the Oneness Pentecostal movement during its formative years between 1913 and 1916.
Whether this reflected conscious intent, inherited assumptions, or simply the theological influences under which Norman James developed cannot be known with certainty. What can be examined is the finished doctrinal system itself. When compared with both historic Trinitarian Christianity and early Oneness Pentecostal theology, its overall doctrine and theological structure correspond far more closely to the latter.
One possible consequence of Wellspring's continued use of Trinitarian language was that it reduced the likelihood of immediate theological scrutiny. Had the church openly identified itself as Oneness Pentecostal, those familiar with the historic Trinity-Oneness divide would likely have examined its doctrine more closely.
Because the church presented itself as Trinitarian, it was not immediately associated with established Oneness groups that many Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians regard as outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy. Whether these effects were intentional cannot be determined with certainty, but they help explain why many members and visitors did not initially recognize the church's theological framework.
When the early Wellspring community relocated from Ohio to western Pennsylvania, it also became increasingly isolated from other Apostolic and Oneness congregations. Unlike parts of Ohio, where Oneness Pentecostal churches were numerous and visible, western Pennsylvania offered relatively few opportunities for comparison with either established Oneness churches or the broader Pentecostal movement.
Within this environment, Wellspring's distinctive theological system developed largely within its own interpretive framework, with little outside engagement or correction. As a result, few members had reason to ask whether Wellspring's doctrines were historically Trinitarian, and the church's repeated claim to be Trinitarian was generally accepted at face value.
The View from the Inside
Looking back, many former members wonder why we did not recognize the Oneness Pentecostal framework woven into Wellspring's teaching. The answer is not that we were careless or naïve. Rather, the theological divergence was difficult to recognize because it was expressed through the familiar language of historic Christianity.
Throughout church history, theological disputes have rarely turned on vocabulary alone. Different groups have often used the same biblical words while assigning them different meanings. For that reason, historic Christian theology has evaluated doctrine not merely by the terms employed, but by how those terms are defined and how they function within an entire theological system.
That was certainly true of our experience. We were young, sincere, and eager to follow God. The language we heard sounded familiar - “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” “born again,” “water baptism,” “God's sovereignty”, "the kingdom of God", "God in three Persons" - all language commonly used within Protestant Trinitarian Christianity. None of us had the theological background to recognize the subtle shifts in meaning beneath the surface. Because we trusted those teaching us, we naturally assumed these familiar terms carried the same meanings they did throughout the wider historic Christian church.
Many of the early members of Wellspring Church came to faith during the Jesus Movement of the 1970s, a time marked by deep devotion to Jesus Christ, Scripture, and a desire for authentic Christian life. That generation carried a sincere and wholehearted love for Jesus, and Norman James’ teaching resonated because it spoke constantly of Christ, obedience, and devotion.
Oneness theology also places strong emphasis on Jesus, but it does so by collapsing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into a single divine Person rather than confessing the eternal Trinity. For many early members, this distinction was not explained or even visible. They believed they were honoring Jesus within the Christian faith, unaware that a non-Trinitarian framework was shaping core doctrines beneath familiar language. In that context, devotion to Christ was genuine, but the theological shift away from the Triune God was subtle, unspoken, and largely hidden.
Those of us raised inside Wellspring Church had little or no exposure to Christian teaching outside the Wellspring community. We never heard the term “Oneness Pentecostalism” at any point in our upbringing - not in the church-operated school, not in the required doctrinal classes, not in the ministry training courses. Not once. The historical name for the theology we were being formed in was entirely absent. Only later, as we began our own research, did we uncover the broader movement and doctrinal lineage from which Norman James and Wellspring Church were drawing.
The absence of any open acknowledgment of these roots was a significant omission. Whatever individual leaders understood about the historical origins of these doctrines, the congregation was never taught that the theological system had recognizable parallels within the twentieth-century Oneness Pentecostal movement. As a result, members lacked the historical framework needed to evaluate Wellspring's teaching in comparison with the wider Christian tradition.
The consistency and precision with which Norman James taught doctrines that correspond to early Oneness Pentecostal theology make it difficult to explain those similarities as mere coincidence. These teachings were not peripheral; they formed the backbone of his teaching on being born again and the Kingdom of God. Yet neither the congregation nor the children raised within the church were ever taught the historical origins of those doctrines.
Founder-Led Oneness Movements and Wellspring Church
Outside established Oneness Pentecostal denominations, a number of independent Oneness movements have emerged through the authority claims of individual founders rather than through continuity with historic Christian teaching. In these movements, theology develops in tandem with personal authority. Doctrine is not received through long-standing statements of belief, historic church councils, or the settled teaching of the wider Christian church, but is instead framed as restored or apostolic truth mediated through a particular individual.
These founder-led Oneness groups are not defined solely by non-Trinitarian theology. Rather, they are marked by a distinctive structure of authority: theological coherence is preserved by loyalty to a founder or successor rather than by reference to beliefs shared across the broader Christian church. In such systems, doctrine functions as an extension of leadership authority, not as a boundary that limits it.
How Founder-Led Oneness Movements Typically Arise
Historically, founder-led Oneness movements tend to arise in similar ways. A charismatic leader emerges outside formal denominational accountability and advances a distinctive interpretation of Scripture, often presented as a recovery of original apostolic teaching. Oneness theology, unanchored to historic definitions of God affirmed by the wider church, provides a flexible framework in which theological meaning can be consolidated around a single interpretive voice.
Over time, the founder’s interpretations become normative. Appeals to historic Trinitarian teaching or to the broader Christian tradition are displaced by internal authority claims, and doctrinal continuity is maintained through succession or institutional preservation of the founder’s system rather than through agreement shared across the church. In such movements, cohesion is maintained not primarily by shared belief, but by the authority of a designated successor or a governing body of elders charged with preserving the founder’s theological system.
Representative Founder-Led Oneness Movements
Several well-documented figures illustrate this pattern.
Frank J. Ewart was one of the earliest architects of modern Oneness theology following the 1913 Arroyo Seco camp meeting. His promotion of Jesus-name baptism arose from claimed revelatory insight rather than from historic Trinitarian teaching and introduced an exclusive baptismal formula that departed from long-standing Christian practice.
William Branham represents a later and more developed form of founder-centered authority. Although widely known for healing ministry, Branham held non-Trinitarian views aligned with Oneness theology and emphasized a distinct “message” associated with his prophetic office. In movements derived from his teaching, doctrine functioned primarily as an extension of the founder’s authority rather than as a shared inheritance received from the wider Christian church.
In addition to these figures, many Oneness groups have developed outside formal denominational structures, often identifying simply as “Apostolic” or “Jesus Name” churches. Rather than belonging to a unified organization, these churches frequently operate as independent assemblies shaped by the authority of a founding pastor or a small circle of leaders. In such settings, theological boundaries are maintained internally, and continuity is preserved through leadership succession rather than through accountability to a broader Christian body.
A common example is the loose constellation of Jesus Only Apostolic churches, which are not a single denomination but a network of independent congregations sharing non-Trinitarian theology. These churches typically affirm Jesus-name baptism as the only valid baptism and reject Trinitarian formulations, while authority is concentrated in local leadership rather than derived from historic Christian teaching shared across churches.
Other Oneness bodies began as founder-led movements that later developed limited organizational structure. The Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, founded by Robert Clarence Lawson, illustrates this pattern. Although it eventually became more structured, its origins lie in a founder-centered authority model emphasizing Jesus-name baptism and a distinctive understanding of being born again shaped by the founder’s teaching rather than by inherited Trinitarian doctrine.
Similarly, networks such as the Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, founded by Smallwood E. Williams, reflect how Oneness theology and authority can develop together. While Bible Way churches share a name and general theology, many local congregations function with strong centralized leadership, and Jesus-name baptism is treated as essential to being born again.
Why These Groups Matter for Comparison
These founder-led Oneness movements matter for comparison not because they are identical, but because they share a structural pattern. In each case, theology is stabilized by authority rather than by shared belief across the wider church. Doctrinal development proceeds internally, insulated from outside correction, and legitimacy is preserved through loyalty to leadership rather than accountability to the broader Christian tradition.
Recognizing this pattern helps distinguish between denominational Oneness churches and independent movements whose theology is inseparable from the authority claims of their founders or successors.
Relation to Wellspring Church and Norman H. James
Wellspring Church fits this broader category of founder-led Oneness movements operating outside established denominational frameworks. Although Norman H. James claimed continuity of authority with Bethesda and the Latter Rain movement, that continuity did not extend to doctrine.
Bethesda and the broader Latter Rain movement operated within a fundamentally Trinitarian understanding of God shared across the Christian church. Norman James departed from that foundation. In its place, he constructed a Oneness theological system that redefined divine personhood, elevated Jesus-name baptism as uniquely valid, and incorporated his own distinctive interpretations and personal revelations. Authority was no longer shaped by long-standing Christian teaching, but flowed instead from the founder’s claims.
As a result, Wellspring’s theology does not descend from historic Christian belief shared across the church. It descends from the authority of its founder and the system he established, placing Wellspring squarely within the historical pattern of founder-led Oneness movements rather than within Trinitarian Christianity.
A Gentle Word to Current Members
If you have made it this far, and are someone still inside Wellspring Church, please know this: you are not being judged, condemned, or looked down upon. Many of us once stood exactly where you are now. We loved God and we genuinely believed we were receiving sound teaching. We were taught that Wellspring had received a restored understanding of Christianity that set it apart from the rest of the church. In that environment, it was natural to believe we were living in a rediscovered expression of true Christian faith.
You do not need to agree with everything written here. You also do not need to defend anything out of fear or pressure. You are allowed to take your time, to think, to pray, and to consider. The Triune God is not threatened by questions. He meets you with patience, kindness, and freedom.
Summary
Norman James claimed that his theology began with the Bible. However, the Bible is never read in isolation; every reading is shaped by prior convictions about who God is and how He exists. For this reason, historic Christianity has recognized that Scripture must be read in light of the God it reveals, with Jesus Christ - the eternal Son - as the interpretive center of revelation. When doctrinal conclusions are assembled from Scripture without being governed by that Christ-centered understanding, theology is not so much drawn from the Bible as organized around a framework that reshapes its meaning.
One of the most serious problems with Oneness teaching lies precisely in this method of handling Scripture. Rather than receiving the Bible as a coherent, unified witness centered on Christ, it frequently treats individual verses as detachable fragments that can be gathered, rearranged, and harmonized into a predetermined system. In doing so, context, genre, and the overarching scriptural portrayal of God are subordinated to the demands of the system itself, allowing Scripture to be quoted extensively while its central message is effectively displaced.
The Oneness Pentecostal doctrine of a three-part gospel of being born again, and all the doctrines that support it, can be described as Christianity without the cross (see Thomas Fudge, Christianity without the Cross). Because being born again is made contingent upon completing prescribed steps rather than resting wholly on the finished work of Christ, the system is not Christ-centered but process-centered, regardless of how frequently Christ is named in its language. In the Wellspring Church (and Oneness) view, believers must work through prescribed steps to be born again, thereby undermining the finished work of Christ on the cross, which the historic Christian faith believes is received by faith.
Norman James taught the core Oneness Pentecostal belief that water baptism - spoken with the “correct” verbal formula - is required in order to be born again. Yet he went even further than classical Oneness doctrine by rejecting the standard Oneness formula (“in the name of Jesus”) and insisting on a baptismal phrase entirely of his own invention, one not found anywhere in Scripture or in any historic Christian tradition. By doing so, he created a system in which being born again was dependent on using a wording unique to him.
In effect, James made access to God’s kingdom contingent upon undergoing water baptism performed under his spoken word and authority. Such a claim cannot be sustained theologically, for Scripture and the historic Christian faith teach that being born again is the gracious act of God alone - wrought by the Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ - not something mediated through the personal control, verbal inventions, or proprietary practices of any leader or congregation.
While James made being born again dependent upon his spoken word, Scripture teaches the opposite: that the Word which gives life is not a human utterance but a divine Person. In the gospel of John, new birth comes through the living Logos - Jesus Christ - whose voice calls the dead to life and whose Spirit gives birth from above. Peter tells us that we are born again “not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). The true gospel does not place power in the spoken word of any leader, but in the eternal Word made flesh, crucified and risen. It is Christ - not any leader, not any formula - who is the source of being born again, and Christ alone who is the door into the Kingdom of God.
Today, those who oversee Wellspring Church continue to claim the same illegitimate authority Norman James constructed for himself, sustaining a system shaped by his doctrinal framework rather than Scripture and historic Christian faith. This authority belongs only to God the Father, to Jesus the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, not to any individual or institution. Spiritual regeneration, being born again and entering the kingdom of God, is the work of the Triune God alone, not something mediated, controlled, or dispensed by human leaders.
Wellspring continues to describe itself as Trinitarian, even as its doctrine reflects the same structure Norman James created. This ongoing use of Trinitarian language may simply carry forward the approach he modeled - borrowing familiar terminology while maintaining a theological system shaped by different underlying convictions.