This study attempts to demonstrate that a trinitarian discourse requires an antinomic grammar (a conceptual unity of two opposite notions) in order to express accurately God’s economic manifestations. As it is acknowledged the notion “trinity” has been used initially as an epistemic construct, a hermeneutical key, for decoding God’s antinomic existence: one nature and three divine Persons. However, God’s trinitarian manifestation in the economy also requires an antinomic grammar. The whole spectrum of God’s economic activity displays a dichotic polarity between His transcendence and immanence (absence and presence). Of course, some theologians have been fascinated by the power of “presence” with all its theological implications. Hence, theologians like Moltmann have developed a cataphatic epistemology about God as Trinity in a manner in which both the logical parameters of theological discourse and divine immanence were preferred to the doxological parameters of divine transcendence. Although, cataphatically, theological discourse acquires important elements of truth for both our epistemological construct about God as Trinity and our ontological relationship with Him, a cataphatic grammar, it is argued, still limits our cognitive universe. More problematic is that cataphatic epistemology uses a noetic grammar for its trinitarian discourse which tends not only to dominate such a conceptual universe but also leads inevitably to a declaration of God’s death in immanence. Alternatively, other theologians, like Lossky, have been fascinated by the mystery of “absence” to which they have assigned an apophatic grammar in order to express it adequately. Apart from its exotic attractiveness to Christian epistemology and its transcendental referential aim, a merely apophatic grammar, it is argued, leads inevitably to a declaration of God’s death in transcendence. In this case “trinity”, as a hermeneutical grammar, becomes a reality in itself and replaces God’s own existence. However, the appropriate solution to this hermeneutical dilemma is an antinomic grammar that operates as a balance between absence and presence. Theologically, an antinomy, in addition to its philosophical meaning, stresses not only the unity between absence and presence but also the distinction between them with the view to express their ontic-noetic tension. Thus, a theological antinomy sets a dynamic “boundary” between transcendence and immanence which emphasises, in turn, their correspondence in the way that immanence participates in transcendence and transcendence reclaims its immanence.