• Trinitarian in name, Oneness in practice: Although Wellspring Church claims to be Trinitarian, its core doctrines and requirements align fully 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 founder Norman James, who blended Trinitarian language with an underlying Oneness theology.

 

 

Trinitarian in name, Oneness in practice

​

​​​​​​Although Wellspring Church publicly 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 is Trinitarian in name, but Oneness in reality.​​​​​​​​​​​​

​

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 Apostolic/Oneness groups as a theological cult, especially in situations where the church displays exclusivity, authoritarian leadership, or claims of possessing the only “true” formula to be born again or access to God's Kingdom. Others avoid the label “cult” and instead describe it as a theologically aberrant movement. 

 

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 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 (1916). 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 new-birth system 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 Church's foundational doctrine is Oneness Pentecostalism.​

​

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 teaching is one of the core tenets of Oneness Pentecostalism. Such an approach rejects the plain reading of Scripture and the clarity of Christ’s command, which reflects the nature of the Triune God. It replaces a direct and explicit instruction from Jesus with a fabricated, 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 entirely Oneness​

​

​Although Wellspring Church publicly professes belief in the Trinity, all of its foundational, functional doctrines align entirely 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.

​

Different Gods, Different Gospels​

​

A Oneness understanding of God inevitably shapes the way salvation and being born again is experienced and taught. If God is one Person revealing Himself in three modes, then each mode must be responded to separately. Repentance becomes the response to God as Father, water baptism “in Jesus’ name” becomes the response to God as Son, and Spirit-baptism with tongues becomes the response to God as the Holy Spirit. Because these manifestations are understood as different operations of the same Person of Jesus, they appear as three distinct requirements that must be fulfilled. Being born again, in this framework, becomes piecemeal: first the Father’s work in conviction, then the Son’s work in remission of sins, and finally the Spirit’s work in empowerment - all validated through specific outward signs.

​

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.​​

​​

​Trinitarian Language Masking a Oneness Understanding of God

​​​​

Norman James often 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 Modalist) understanding of God in which “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are not distinct divine persons but different roles or titles of a single divine individual.​

 

Within historic Trinitarian Christianity, however, God is not one person wearing three different labels; He is one God in three co-eternal, co-equal 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 current 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. 

​

 

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 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.” In doing so, he displaced the Trinitarian theological foundation of Bethesda and the broader Latter Rain movement with the Oneness theology of his earlier formation, resulting in a fundamentally different system - one that Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions have consistently rejected as incompatible with the Christian faith.

​​

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 Norman James Did Not Identify as Oneness

​

Although Norman James publicly used Trinitarian language, and although he never openly identified Wellspring Church as Oneness Pentecostal, both his doctrinal structure and his teaching techniques fit squarely within a recognizable Oneness framework. His approach mirrors a well-documented pattern among 20th-century Oneness-derived groups: avoiding the label “Oneness Pentecostal” altogether.

​

This avoidance was not unusual. For decades, leaders within various Oneness circles have distanced themselves from the term Oneness because of its association with doctrinal controversy, marginal sects, and accusations of heresy from across the Christian world. Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians have consistently held that denying the Trinity places a group outside the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy. As a result, many Oneness groups adopted Trinitarian vocabulary in public settings while quietly teaching modalistic concepts within their own communities.

​

Norman James displayed a pattern common in many Oneness-derived groups: he spoke the language of Trinitarian Christianity while importing meanings drawn from modalistic theology. He would at times firmly defend the vocabulary of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet elsewhere explain these not as three divine Persons but as titles or roles of the one divine Person Jesus.

 

This created a theological presentation in which the surface appeared Trinitarian, but the functional content remained thoroughly Oneness. In effect, he offered one message verbally while teaching another structurally - making Wellspring feel “orthodox” to those inside while quietly grounding it in a system the Christian church has always rejected.

​

​In the rare moments when members pressed too closely for clarity about whether he affirmed a Oneness or Trinitarian view of God, Norman James did not welcome the inquiry. Rather than offering a straightforward theological explanation, he often shut down the conversation - sometimes sharply - leaving the questioner feeling corrected, silenced, or spiritually at fault for asking. This pattern protected the ambiguity rather than resolving it. 

​

This strategy served practical purposes. Avoiding the term Oneness prevented:

• Immediate suspicion from those familiar with the historic Trinity–Oneness divide

• Doctrinal scrutiny that would expose the incompatibility between his theology and the historic Christian faith

• Association with authoritarian or fringe Oneness groups, which were widely regarded as cultic

• Barriers to attracting new members, including educated Protestants and Catholics who would have immediately rejected explicit Oneness teaching

 

In short, openly identifying as Oneness would have undermined Norman James’ ability to build and maintain the community he was creating. By teaching a Oneness theology under Trinitarian language, he was able to present Wellspring as orthodox to those inside and outside the church, while simultaneously instituting doctrines and structures that depended on a hidden Oneness foundation.

​

This concealment was not incidental to the system - it was necessary for it. Exposing the church’s theological origins would have illuminated the inconsistency between its public confession and its internal doctrine, and it would have raised questions that could not be answered without unraveling the entire framework. The avoidance of the term Oneness therefore functioned as both a shield and a strategy: a way to preserve authority, maintain control, and prevent the kind of informed discernment that might have destabilized the community early on.

​

​When the early Wellspring community was relocated from Ohio to Pittsburgh, it became increasingly isolated from other Oneness and Apostolic congregations and networks. Unlike regions with a strong and visible Oneness presence, Pittsburgh offered fewer points of theological comparison or correction. In this setting, distinct doctrines could develop and solidify with little external engagement, reinforcing internal authority and dependence.

 

Why We Didn’t See It

​

Looking back, many of us 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. It is that the system itself made the divergence almost impossible to see.

​

We were young, sincere, and eager to follow God. The language we heard sounded familiar - “Lord,” “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” “born again,” “water baptism,” “God's sovereignty”, "the kingdom of God" - all language used in Protestant Trinitarian Christianity. None of us had the theological background or training to notice the subtle shifts in meaning beneath the surface. And because we trusted the people teaching us, we assumed the definitions were the same ones used by the wider Christian church.

​

Norman James also made use of a Trinitarian catechism structure, which gave the outward appearance of Protestant lineage even while the inward doctrinal content reflected a Oneness Pentecostal understanding of God and being born again. The outward form felt Protestant; the substance quietly shifted into something very different.

​

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.

​

Most Christians, even very devout ones, cannot easily spot the difference between Trinitarian theology and modalism without study or training. It is not surprising that none of us saw it clearly at the time. We were not foolish; we were trusting. And our trust was met with teaching that looked familiar on the outside but carried a very different meaning inside. That is why it took so many years for the pieces to come into focus.

​

For those of us raised inside Wellspring Church, we had no outside Christian influence or training. 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 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. Given Norman James’ background in Ohio, the clear parallels between his teaching and Oneness Pentecostal doctrine, and the intelligence of Wellspring’s appointed leaders and influential members, it is very difficult to understand how the origins and category of this doctrine were never recognized or openly discussed within the community. 

 

The consistency and precision with which Norman James taught the doctrines of Oneness Pentecostalism make it implausible that he was unaware of the theological system he was advancing. These teachings were not incidental or peripheral; they formed the backbone of his teaching on being born again and the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, Norman James, and those closest to him, never disclosed this doctrinal lineage to the congregation or to the children of the community.

​​

A Gentle Word to Current Members​

​

If you are reading this as 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 invites them. He meets you with patience, kindness, and freedom.

​​​

​

​​​​​​​​​Summary​​​​​​​

​

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). It resembles religions like Freemasonry or Mormonism that offer a ladder of attainment to reach a higher spiritual status. 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. 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.

​​

​