Thus there is a polarity in this concept of God: he is both
abstract and concrete; he is both «
eternal» and «everlasting»; he is both himself and yet endlessly related; he is both transcendent and immanent; he is both the chief
principle of explanation and yet participant, working with, and influenced by, all that is to be explained.
Using these as an explanation would only risk doing what John Dewey urged us to renounce — the kind of pseudo-explanation that «only
abstracts some aspect of the existing course of events in order to reduplicate it as a petrified
eternal principle by which to explain the very changes of which it is the formalization» (4:11).