The inspired phrase, “three living persons of heavenly trio”, by Ellen White is commonly used as proof positive that the trinity doctrine is supported by her writings. Consequently, many within the church find the aforementioned expression to be in harmony with the church’s Fundamental Beliefs, which defines one God as “a unity of three co-eternal persons”.

What did Ellen White mean when she wrote, “three living persons of heavenly trio”? Let’s find out.

The manuscript source for the phrase, “three living persons of heavenly trio”, can be traced back to Ellen White’s letter entitled, “Come Out and Be Separate”, written in November, 1905, while she was residing in St. Helena, California. This letter was one of several letters written during this time in response to the erroneous teachings of J. H. Kellogg.

Portions of this manuscript was also published twice in 1906. One was in a periodical, “The Bible Training School” and the other in a pamphlet, “Testimonies for the Church Containing Messages of Warning and Instruction to Seventh-day Adventists” and four other times in other subsequent publications. She never published “three living personalities.”

“There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.” {BTS March 1, 1906, par. 2} (The Bible Training School) Click HERE for an original copy.

There exist within the non-trinitarian community today who take issues with the “heavenly trio” statement because they believe that the statement’s usage of the word “persons” pertaining to the Holy Spirit was intentionally added by some bad actors within the church to legitimize the church’s trinitarian position, namely its pneumatology. Consequently, they are trying to act as if Ellen White did not control her own 1906 publications.

For those who doubt the legitimacy of Ellen White’s published writings, please consider the following statements. Ellen White had the oversight. She would always read her articles and books to see that they expressed what she wanted BEFORE they were published. She explains herself:

“EVERY ARTICLE I prepare to be edited by my workers, I ALWAYS HAVE TO READ MYSELF BEFORE IT IS SENT FOR PUBLICATION… {Lt84-1898.18}

“I READ OVER ALL THAT IS COPIED, TO SEE THAT EVERYTHING IS AS IT SHOULD BE. I READ ALL THE BOOK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE IT IS SENT TO THE PRINTER. So you can see that my time must be fully occupied. Besides writing, I am called upon to speak to the different churches, and to attend important meetings. I could not do this work unless the Lord helped me.” {Lt133-1902.4}

“I WISH TO WRITE WORDS THAT SHALL REMOVE FROM THE MINDS OF ANY OF MY BRETHREN THE IMPRESSION THAT I DID NOT, BEFORE THEIR PUBLICATION, READ THE PAGES IN TESTIMONY FOR THE CHURCH, VOL. 9, relating to Sunday labor…” {Lt94-1910.1}

This is why she could say, with absolute confidence, that if anyone back then wanted to know her views then they should read her public works instead of heeding hearsay.

“And now to all who have a desire for truth I would say: Do not give credence to unauthenticated reports as to what Sister White has done or said or written. If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works. Are there any points of interest concerning which she has not written, do not eagerly catch up and report rumors as to what she has said. {5T 696.1}

Thus when people come along and say that EGW did not mean “persons” but “personalities” and that someone altered the publication, they are making a claim that is not supported by the facts in anyway. Mrs. White had the oversight of her articles and books and she published this quote TWICE.

Context and Background

Without a doubt, sister White would have known about John Harvey Kellogg’s newly adopted profession as a trinitarian, as well as his pantheistic teachings.

On October 29, 1903, A. G. Daniells (then General Conference president) wrote a letter to W. C. White wherein Daniells related his concerns regarding Dr. John Harvey Kellogg’s proposal to revise and republish his book, The Living Temple and his newly embraced trinitarian theology.

“He [Kellogg] then stated that his former views regarding the trinity had stood in his way of making a clear and absolutely correct statement: but that within a short time HE HAD COME TO BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY, and could now see pretty clearly where all the difficulty was, and believed that he could clear the matter up satisfactorily. He told me that HE NOW BELIEVED IN GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON, AND GOD THE HOLY GHOST; and his view was that it was God the Holy Ghost, and not God the Father, that filled all space, and every living thing.” (bracket supplied) (Click HERE for the original letter)

In the letter, Daniells describes how Dr. Kellogg’s recent acceptance of the Trinity was an attempt to reconcile his earlier pantheistic views. More significantly, the letter appears to indicate that Kellogg’s adoption of the Trinity marked a departure from the prevailing non-Trinitarian position held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church at the time.

On November 4th, 1903, W. C. White (Ellen White’s son) responds to A. G. Daniells’ Oct 29, 1903 letter:

 “MOTHER AND I HAVE JUST READ YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 29 in which you speak of the various plans that have been proposed for the revising and reproduction of ‘The Living Temple’. . . I think she will write to you soon expressing her views regarding this. . . “I believe it will be necessary to issue a special Testimony soon, and this must contain a very full and clear statement on the positive side of this question, as well as articles pointing out the errors in the teaching of those who have departed from the truth through fascinating and deceptive theories” (Click HERE for the original letter)

Consequently, besides the aforementioned letter entitled, “Come Out and Be Separate”, Ellen White wrote several additional letters including “Kellogg J.H.” Lt253, “Teach the Word” Lt211-1903, “Leaders in Our Medical Work” Lt216-1903 concerning the erroneous teachings of J. H. Kellogg.

What’s worth noting is that while some conflate the phrase, “heavenly trio” with traditional Trinitarian doctrine, Ellen White used the term in a distinctly different way. The historical context indicates that she introduced the noted phrase in response to Kellogg’s pantheistic ideas and his newly embraced trinitarian view, intending to correct his errors. Significantly, when opposing Kellogg’s beliefs, she criticized the illustrations that the trinitarians used to describe God and never once did she alluded to the concept of God as three-in-one:

“I have not been able to sleep during the past night. Letters have come to me with statements made by men who claimed to have asked Dr. Kellogg if he believes the statements that Sister White bears. . .” (“Come Out and Be Separate”), {Ms21-1906.1}

“I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: ‘The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit as the light shed abroad.’ ‘The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.’ Another representation: ‘The Father is like the invisible vapor. The Son is like the leaden cloud. The Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.'” (“Come Out and Be Separate”) {Ms21-1906.8}

She goes on to mention that

“All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God cannot be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. The Father cannot be described by the things of earth…” {Ms 21, 1906, par. 9}

In the same letter, a couple of paragraphs later, we read the very statement under consideration:

“There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. {Ms21-1906.11}

W. E. Boardman book, “The Higher Christian Life”

Almost 50 years before Ellen White published “heavenly trio” statement, W. E. Boardman, a Trinitarian, authored a widely popular book, “The Higher Christian Life” in 1858. In it, he used illustrations such as, “The Father is as the light invisible, the Son as the light embodied, and the Spirit as the light shed abroad,” to describe a Trinitarian view of God. Ellen White’s letter echoed these descriptions—but used them to condemn the concept and its associated practices.

Interestingly, W. E. Boardman’s book The Higher Christian Life offers insightful clues regarding the possible origin of the phrase “heavenly trio,” while also highlighting how Ellen White deliberately avoided Boardman’s explicitly Trinitarian language.

In her testimony against Dr. Kellogg (Ms21-1906), Ellen White closely echoed Boardman’s wording—at times nearly verbatim. However, when she reached the point in his writing where he referred to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the “tri-personality of the one God” or “living personalities of the living God” (p. 104), or the “living persons of the living God” (p. 105)—clear expressions of Trinitarian doctrine—she instead used the phrase, “living persons of the heavenly trio.” This distinction is significant: while Boardman’s language reflected a classic Trinitarian formulation (three “persons” or “personalities” comprising one God), Ellen White’s use of “heavenly trio” does not carry the same theological implications, though some attempt to interpret it that way. Notably, Ellen White never employed overtly Trinitarian terms such as “Triune God” as boardman did in his book.

Modifications Ellen White made to Boardman’s statements.

Boardman’s usage of “IS” in describing each of the three persons’ attributes are of noteworthy:

• “THE FATHER IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD INVISIBLE.“
• “THE SON IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD MANIFESTED.”
• “THE SPIRIT IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD MAKING MANIFEST.”

Boardman also added:

“The persons are not mere offices, or modes of revelation, but living persons of the living God.”

(W. E. Boardman, Higher Christian Life, pg. 105; see pics below-click to enlarge)

Boardman: “THE FATHER IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD INVISIBLE.“

• White: “The Father IS all the fulness of the Godhead BODILY, AND IS INVISIBLE TO MORTAL SIGHT.”

Here, Ellen White affirms the corporeal materiality of God by using the term “bodily”, indicating that God has a tangible form and that the invisibility of God is only “to mortal sight”. Thus she affirmed the “personality of God” as she received from her first visions (“I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired his lovely person. . . . I ASKED JESUS IF HIS FATHER HAD A FORM LIKE HIMSELF; HE SAID HE HAD, BUT I COULD NOT BEHOLD IT.” (Letter From Sister Harmon, Day-Star, March 14, 1846, par. 7) and also as outlined in her husbands pamphlet.

• Boardman: “THE SON IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD MANIFESTED.”

• White: “The Son IS all the fulness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be ‘the express image of His person.’ ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ Here is shown the personality of the Father.”

Here, Ellen felt the need to add a great deal more than Boardman. She incorporates Hebrews 1:3, which identifies Christ as the “express image” of God—a term denoting a perfect and complete representation of the Father’s person—and also references John 3:16. Her concluding statement, “Here is shown the personality of the Father,” again echos her vision in which Jesus affirmed to her that “His father had a form like Himself”. Through this, Ellen White affirms the distinct, tangible, bodily personhood of both the Father and the Son, emphasizing their individuality.

Ellen White’s view of the Father and Son both having bodily personalities is a rejection of both the Catholics Trinity:

“Humankind is created “in [God’s] image and likeness” (cf. Gen. 1:26). From the context of Genesis 1, we know this “image and likeness” does not pertain to the body of man because God has no body. Indeed the divine nature cannot be bodily or material because there can be no potency in God as there is inherent in bodies, so this “image and likeness” must be referring to our higher faculties or operations of intellect and will.” (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity)

as well as the Methodist’s view  (“There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts”) of the trinity.

• Boardman: “THE SPIRIT IS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD MAKING MANIFEST.”

• White: “The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit IN all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.”

Did you catch it? Instead of repeating Boardman’s “Spirit IS“, White wrote, “Spirit IN“.

While Ellen White’s statements clearly affirm the distinct personhood of both the Father and the Son, she employs notably different language when referring to the Holy Spirit—particularly through her use of the preposition “IN” rather than “IS.” This linguistic choice is significant. Whereas she writes that the Father IS “all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” and that the Son IS “all the fulness of the Godhead manifested,” as the “express image of His [the Father’s] person,” the Spirit is described as being IN “all the fulness of the Godhead.” This subtle shift suggests a relational and locative distinction: the Holy Spirit is not described as a separate embodiment of the Godhead, but rather as indwelling the fulness of the Father and the Son.

In this framework, the Holy Spirit is not presented as an entirely autonomous “third person” in the same ontological sense as the Father and the Son, but rather as an inward, divine presence—proceeding from and residing within them. This conceptualization aligns with the frequent possessive language used in reference to the Spirit throughout both the Scripture and Ellen White’s writings—phrases such as “Holy Spirit of God”, ” Spirit of God” “God’s Spirit,” “His Spirit,” “Holy Spirit of Christ” or “the Spirit of Christ”, etc. Historically, this suggests that Ellen White maintained a much more nuanced and perhaps non-creedal view of the Holy Spirit—distinguishing her theology from the classical Trinitarian formulations of both her contemporaries and her Methodist background and even the modern SDA’s pneumatology.

It becomes increasingly evident that Ellen White was not only reading W. E. Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life but also actively engaging with its content, reflecting on it through her own theological lens. Boardman’s work is saturated with overtly Trinitarian language—phrases such as “tri-personality of the one God,” “the Triune God,” and “living persons of the living God.” (see attached pics below) Yet, Ellen White pointedly avoids quoting any of these traditional formulations. Instead, she introduces an entirely new expression: the “heavenly trio.” 

To assert that her use of “heavenly trio” aligns seamlessly with the Trinitarian concepts of her time—or even with the consubstantial Trinitarianism of her Methodist background—is to overlook a crucial historical and theological nuance. Ellen White’s formulation represents, in many respects, a theological departure or redefinition. If one were to characterize it, her concept might be called a kind of “triotarianism”—a distinctly Adventist reframing of divine plurality that deliberately avoids creedal language of classical Trinitarianism.

Thus, drawing direct equivalence between Ellen White’s expression and either contemporary or historical models of the Trinity risks oversimplification. It is a form of theological reductionism to interpret her language through the lens of established Trinitarian frameworks without acknowledging her unique and intentional departure from them.

Again, Ellen White, when quoting Boardman, carefully and deliberately avoided using any trinitarian expressions. This shows (a) she was making some clear distinctions regarding trinitarianism and (b) that she knew what Kellogg was professing. After all, why else would she speak out against these trinitarian sentiments in a testimony against what Kellogg was teaching.

The problem is, the SDA trinitarians use this “three living persons of the heavenly trio” quote from Ellen White but they fail to understand the context in which she wrote it. If Ellen White had been a trinitarian, why did she not just quote Boardman as he wrote it instead of deliberately changing it to “heavenly trio?” There must be a reason. The reason is, she did not agree with trinitarianism nor Kellogg’s profession.

“persons” vs “personalities”

There are much debates as to the expression “persons” vs “personalities” attached to the “heavenly trio” statement. Many non-trinitarians argue that because Ellen White’s original handwriting shows “personalities,” that the published writings must have been compromised. The contention, according to (some, but not all) non-trinitarians, is based on the photocopy of her handwriting (often a cropped version) where she had made a notation, “alities” above the phrase, “persons” in the noted paragraph, where the letter “s” at the end of “persons” appears to be crossed out suggesting a correction. The Idea behind the non-trinitarians’ objection is that the word, “persons” connote more strongly, the idea of a separate individual being (supporting trinity) whereas the expression, “personalities” would more easily convey the idea of “character of office” or “agency,” which do not necessarily denote a separate individual, etc (see attached pic below). The preference for “personalities” in favor of “persons” is a straw-man argument, for Ellen White used both expressions in a very similar fashion. This, however, does not negate the fact that both “persons” and “personalities” have range of meanings that needs to be defined clearly based on the context.

What Ellen White originally wrote was somewhat different than what was published. While the persons/personalities discrepancy is one that is mostly discussed, there is however another notable detail in this handwriting which is overlooked and that is the endorsement of the Matthew 28’s three-fold title for baptism where the phrase, “in the name of Jesus Christ to them” is crossed out.

She wrote in her own handwriting (as far as we can tell from the survived copy):

The Father is not to be described by the earthly 

Fathers person For God so loved the world that he gave 

Invisible to mortal earthly sight.

The Son is all the fullness of the God head

Revealed manifested, He is the express image of his

*Fathers person* For God so loved the world that he gave

his only begotten Son that whosoever

believeth in him Should not perish but have

everlasting life. Here is the personality of the Father

The Spirit the Comforter whom Christ

promised to send after he assended to heaven

Is Christ is the Spirit in all the fullness 

of the God head making manifest to the 

All who receive him and believe in Him

“There are the living three persons alities of the heavenly 

trio in which every soul repenting of their 

sins, believing receiving Christ by a living

faith, to them who are baptized in the name 

of Jesus Christ to them in the name of the 

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 

Ghost-three high dignified personalities

Give power because they are Gods property

to be called the Sons of God, What is the sinner

to do, believe in Jesus Christ because they

are his property which he hath purchased

with his own blood though the test and trial

to which he was subjected to redeem from the slavery

The two variations of the published words were:

“There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.” {BTS March 1, 1906, par. 2}

“There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ….” {SpTB07 63.2, 1906}

How do we account for the changes in the wording when it was published? All I can say is, it is unknown. We do have the typed manuscript, and based on Ellen White’s own testimony, I am more inclined to believe that she approved the manuscript before it was published.

“I find it quite ironic that many non-Trinitarians advocate for the corrected wording in Ellen White’s original handwriting—especially favoring terms like “personalities” over “persons”—yet at the same time promote baptism exclusively in Jesus’ name but dismissing Matthew 28:19 as a corruption influenced by Trinitarian theology. What’s often overlooked however is that in the very same handwritten manuscript, the phrase “in Jesus’ name” in reference to baptism is crossed out, while the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost—three high, dignified personalities” is retained. The point is this: if we’re striving for consistency, we must honestly acknowledge everything affirmed in her writings, rather than selectively upholding what aligns with our personal views.”

Moreover, those who advocate for the corrected version on the hand-written manuscript (“personalities” instead of “persons”) should do well to note how Ellen White used “personalities” in the following statements:

“Christ and God are one, and yet they are distinct personalities. Christ spoke with conscious authority, as one possessing in Himself power that would enable Him to perform His work.” {Ms140-1903.44}

“God had placed upon His Son authority to lay hold of the eternal throne with His divine nature. While Christ stood forth distinct in His own personality, He reflected the luster of the greatness that was His because of His position of honor within the encircling light of the eternal throne, in unity with God.” {Ms 156, 1903, par. 4}

“These words show that God and Christ are two personalities, distinct and separate. The unity for which Christ prays, which is to make believers one with Him, as He is one with the Father, does not destroy the personality of God or the personality of Christ. The believers become sons of God, and the personality of all is preserved.” {Lt 52, 1906, par. 23}

Above statements are just a few examples of how Ellen White used the expression, “personalities” to indicate two separate individuals. I am not saying this to affirm the idea that heavenly trio is a trinitarian statement but to show that sometimes non-trinitarians, in their zeal to repudiate trinity hold to an untenable position.

And should I add to this the multiple times she published that the holy Spirit is the “third Person”?

“Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power. Another spirit must be met; for the essence of evil was working in all ways, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing. {SpTA10 25.2}

The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. {SpTA10 37.1}

Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power… {DA 671.2}

He determined to give His representative, the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead. This gift could not be excelled. He would give all gifts in one, and therefore the divine Spirit, converting, enlightening, sanctifying, would be His donation. {ST December 1, 1898, par. 2}

Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power… {RH May 19, 1904, par. 3}

He determined to give his representative, the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead. This gift could not be excelled. He would give all gifts in one, and therefore the divine Spirit, that converting, enlightening and sanctifying power, would be his donation. {SW November 28, 1905, par. 2}

Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the THIRD PERSON of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power.. {RH November 19, 1908, Art. B, par. 5}

So that is twice that SHE published “three living persons” and that is seven times that SHE published “third person.” Again, not once did she publish “three living personalities” or “third personality of the Godhead.”

Again, sentiments among some non-trinitarians are that, rather than honestly making an effort to reconcile these seemingly difficult statements concerning the personhood of the Holy Spirit, some immediately regard them as corrupted and will resort to some form of conspiracy theory and say that Mrs. White’s writings have been tampered with and even make it their personal goal to zealously promote them as such. Unfortunately for some, as soon as Inspiration teaches something that seems to go against one of their cherished positions, they resort to denying particular Testimonies altogether.

I have no doubt that those who are pursuing this course are doing it with all the good intentions to protect the rest of us from error, but it’s my humble opinion that they are doing so to their own detriment and are causing much more harm then actually helping the cause, for what they are really doing is unwittingly or intentionally sowing the seeds of doubt on the Testimonies as a whole and Satan is well pleased with these approaches because he can make void the testimonies by the very means.

Two Distinct Bodily Personalities vs Three Distinct Economic Personalities

Below is how I understand what Ellen White meant when she wrote, “heavenly trio.” I believe this to be the Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy’s view of the personalities of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit:

Two Distinct Bodily Personalities – the Father and the Son

• God the Father: “The Father IS all the fulness of the Godhead [divinity] bodily and is invisible to mortal sight.” (bracket supplied by me). The Father has a corporeal, tangible, bodily form and shape; has a local presence i.e. “our Father which art in heaven”-Mt 6:9)
• Begotten Son of God “The Son IS all the fulness of the Godhead manifested [blended with humanity].” (bracket supplied by me) Jesus has a corporeal, tangible, bodily form and shape, has a local presence i.e. not unlike the Father’s personality. He is the express image of the Father’s Person. “We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens”-Heb 8:1; “BY Whom are all things” -1Cor 8:6)

The expression, the “Godhead bodily,” found in Col. 2:9 simply means that all the power of the Godhead (divinity)was dwelling in the flesh of incarnate Christ; simply an equivalent of chapter 1:19 where it says, “For it pleased the Father that in Him should all the fulness dwell.

Three Economic Personalities – Father, Son and the Holy Spirit

 Sister white in describing the Holy Spirit, said, “The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit IN all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.”

As noted previously, the Spirit is described as being IN “all the fulness of the Godhead.” This subtle shift suggests a relational and locative distinction: the Holy Spirit is not described as a separate embodiment of the Godhead, but rather as indwelling the fulness of the Father and the Son.

While the Father and the Son possess bodily personalities, they also possess an indwelling spiritual personality (aka Holy Spirit). It is the Father and Son’s “inner person” if you will (but not an entirely separate independent Person in the same ontological sense as Father and Son are) that is distinctly different than the Father and Son’s bodily personality whereby they are omnipresent-a mysterious non-corporeal personality operating outside of God and Christ, imbued with attributes that are not unlike a person (to be able to grieve, to speak, to teach, to convict etc. but also to dwell in the believer, to be shed abroad, to be poured upon, etc.). This is the mystery of the nature of the Holy Spirit which I cannot fully explain but I find these attributes sufficient to warrant the labeling of “person” and, apparently, so did Mrs. White.

“The Lord’s throne is in heaven” (Psalm 11:4); YET BY HIS SPIRIT HE IS EVERYWHERE PRESENT. He has an intimate knowledge of, and a personal interest in, all the works of His hand. ” { E. G. White, Education , p. 132}

John 14:18 “ I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 14:23 “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE will come unto him, and make OUR abode with him.”

Romans 8:9 “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the SPIRIT OF GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his.”

“person” and “personality” in the Spirit of Prophecy have a range of meanings, but two are important to the issue at hand:

1. “Person” and “personality” can refer to God the Father and Christ being a whole being:

Example: “The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. In mind, in purpose, in character, they are one, but not in person.”

“Christ and God are one, and yet they are distinct personalities. Christ spoke with conscious authority, as one possessing in Himself power that would enable Him to perform His work.” {Ms140-1903.44}

God has a PERSONALITY AS VERILY AS HAS CHRIST.” {SpM 324.2}

“The Son of God was next in authority to the great Lawgiver. He knew that his life alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man. He was of as much more value than man as his noble, spotless character, and exalted office as commander of all the heavenly host, were above the work of man. He was in the express image of his Father, NOT IN FEATURE ALONE, BUT IN PERFECTION OF CHARACTER.” (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 91)

God saw that a clearer revelation than nature was needed to portray both His personality and His character. He sent His Son into the world to reveal, so far as could be endured by human sight, the nature and the attributes of the invisible God. {CCh 75.6}

Had God desired to be represented as dwelling personally in the things of nature—in the flower, the tree, the spire of grass—would not Christ have spoken of this to His disciples when He was on the earth? But never in the teaching of Christ is God thus spoken of. Christ and the apostles taught clearly the truth of the existence of a personal God.{CCh 75.7}

2. “Person” and “personality” can also refer to as a character or an incorporeal, spiritual manifestation or presence

Example: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Christ is not here referring to his doctrine, but to his person, the divinity of his character.” {RH April 5, 1906, par. 12}

The gospel of Christ becomes personality in those who believe, and makes them living epistles, known and read of all men. In this way the leaven of godliness passes into the multitude. The heavenly intelligences are able to discern the true elements of greatness in character; for only goodness is esteemed as efficiency with God. {CE 97.1}

“When trials overshadow the soul, remember the words of Christ, remember that He is an unseen presence in the person of the Holy Spirit, and He will be the peace and comfort given you, manifesting to you that He is with you, the Sun of Righteousness, chasing away your darkness. “If a man love me,” Christ said, “he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” Be of good cheer; light will come, and your soul will rejoice greatly in the Lord.”—Letter 124, 1897. {DG 185.2}

We may refer to the first category as representing the corporeal, tangible, bodily Personality and the second of the mentioned categories to be representing the personhood that is defined as incorporeal, non-tangible, spiritual manifestation.

The two of the three Persons of the Godhead-God the Father and the Son possess corporeal, tangible, bodily personality. However, they both possess an internal, incorporeal, non-tangible, spiritual personality that is operating externally from them, in an omnipresent capacity.

“They have ONE God and ONE Saviour; and ONE Spirit–the Spirit of Christ–is to bring unity into their ranks.” — (E.G. White, 9T 189.3, 1909)

“Christ, our Mediator, and the Holy Spirit are constantly interceding in man’s behalf, but the Spirit pleads not for us as does Christ, who presents His blood, shed from the foundation of the world; the Spirit works upon our hearts, drawing out prayers and penitence, praise and thanksgiving. The gratitude which flows from our lips is the result of the Spirit striking the cords of the soul in holy memories, awakening the music of the heart.” {1SM 344.1}

Some might conclude that Christ, Who is ministering in the heavenly sanctuary and the Spirit, Who is working upon our hearts, are two entirely separate individuals. But, let’s compare the above statement with the following statements below:

W.C. White on Person and Personality

Furthermore, there is a distinction that can be made between “person” and “personality” and the manner in which “personality” can be defined. In a letter dated January 24, 1935, Elder H. W. Carr wrote to W. C. White requesting Willie’s understanding of his “mother’s position in reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit.” Elder White responded in part:

“This I cannot do because I never clearly understood her teachings on the matter. There always was in my mind some perplexity regarding the meaning of her utterances which to my superficial manner of thinking seemed to be somewhat confusing. … My perplexities were lessened a little when I learned from the dictionary that one of the meanings of personality, was characteristics. It is stated in such a way that I concluded that there might be personality without bodily form which is possessed by the Father and the Son.” — Letter of W. C. White to H. W. Carr, April 30, 1935

Is Heavenly Trio a Biblical teaching?

The word “trio” is defined as a set or grouping of three things (or three persons). Therefore in order for the concept of trio to be Biblical (assuming we understand that Ellen White was speaking of God the Father, His Son and His Holy Spirit), we must find these 3 grouped together in Scripture. Please keep in mind that the set or the grouping of the three does not necessarily constitute a doctrine trinity as it is promulgated today in Adventism; the mere mentioning of the three does not necessarily make the unity of three into one God or a triune God:

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen — 2 Corinthians 13:14

Here we see a mentioning of 3 – love of God, grace of Jesus, communion of the holy Ghost.

Moving on,

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. — 1 Peter 1:2

Here again we see the trio. Foreknowledge of God, sanctification of the Spirit and blood of Jesus.

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all — Ephesians 4:4-6

Notice one Spirit, one Lord [Jesus implied] and one God. Again we see trio.

“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all — 1 Corinthians 12:4-6

Here again we see the Spirit, the Lord [Jesus implied] and the God.

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood” — Revelation 1:4, 5

Here we see an apostolic salutation of “Grace and peace from him which is, and which was, and which is to come” [God the Father], “from the seven Spirits” [the holy Spirit] “And Jesus Christ” [the Son of God]. Here we see a trio greeting by the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” — Matthew 28:19

Here we find a grouping of 3 – Father (1), Son (2) and holy Ghost (3) under the heading of name (singular). Thus we have a “name” trio.

And in all the aforementioned references, we see a trio at work involving the Father, Son and Spirit for the benefit of humanity’s salvation. Thus EGW is most certainly correct to speak of a “trio.”

So now what about the adjective “heavenly?” Contextually this means of or from heaven in terms of origin:

Of God the Father:

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” — Matthew 5:16

Of the Son of God:

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” — John 3:13

Of the holy Spirit:

“Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” — 1 Peter 1:12

Thus the expression “heavenly trio” is justifiable via Scripture.

Conclusion:

A belief in the personalities or even the unity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit does not itself make one a “Trinitarian”, for even non-trinitarians can accept the existence of 3 divine “Persons”. The distinctive teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity is specific: There is one God, and this one God is a unity of three Persons.

As for “heavenly trio”, although the term affirms the existence of three distinct divine personalities, it should not be conflated with the classical orthodox consubstantial trinity or the modern Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of a three-in-one triune God. Moreover, Ellen White’s use of the phrase does not negate the non-Trinitarian understanding of the Holy Spirit as the omnipresent personal presence of the Father and the Son in a functional or economic sense. In fact, her framework of the Holy Spirit is presented not as an entirely autonomous “third person” in the same ontological sense as the Father and the Son, but rather as an inward, divine presence—proceeding from and residing within them. Furthermore, rather than endorsing traditional Trinitarian formulations, her language reflects an intentional and deliberate departure—what could be termed a uniquely inspired reinterpretation of divine plurality.

To equate Ellen White’s terminology directly with either historical or contemporary Trinitarian models overlooks the theological nuance and distinctiveness of her own unique expression. Her formulation avoids the metaphysical language of the creeds, suggesting a theological position that resists easy categorization. The real interpretive challenge lies in whether one imposes a preconceived framework—either Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian—onto her inspired terminology, rather than allowing her unique theological voice to speak on its own terms.

My appeal is that when we encounter any inspired statement from Ellen White, we should resist the urge to draw conclusions based on our own theological biases. Instead, we ought to carefully examine her writings in a holistic manner, comparing related statements and striving to harmonize them without contradiction, in order to arrive at a sound and balanced understanding.

Related articles:

Who is the third person of the Godhead?

Holy Spirit is a Distinct Personality-A Statement re-examined

Concept of One