Page History

...

There is a further respect in which "formally normative Christian witness" and "the 'right' philosophy" are similar as well as different: both are, in their respectively different ways, "normed norms" (normae normatae) and are, therefore, also always "to be normed " (normae normandae). They are normed and also always to be normed, however, not by any other norm or authority, properly so-called, but solely by the primal sources of the relevant norms or au!horities, i.e., by specifically Christian experience of Jesus in the case of "formally normative Christian witness," and by common or generically human experience of existence/ultimate reality in the case of "the 'right' philosophy."

To be sure, it is only by appealing to "formally normative Christian witness" that systematic theology can determine, finally, what is, in fact, authorized by specifically Christian experience of Jesus. I say "determine, finally," because, although all the rest of the tradition of Christian witness may also more or less appropriately express what specifically Christian experience of Jesus authorizes, how appropriately any of it does this can be determined only by appealing to "formally normative Christian witness." In this sense, such witness is irreplaceable -- its being irreplaceable being just what is meant, in fact, by its being uniquely appropriate and, therefore, "formally normative." And yet, even in the case of irreplaceable / uniquely appropriate / formally normative witness, a distinction is to be made and consistently carried through between the content of witness -- the self-understanding / understanding of existence decisively represented through Jesus -- and its own particular formulations of this content, which are normative only because of their content and only because, or insofar as, they formulate their content appropriately.
4
In somewhat the same way, it is only by appealing to "the 'right' philosophy" that any systematic theology can finally determine what is, in fact, authorized by common, or generically human experience of existence / ultimate reality. Here, again, the qualification, "finally determine" is necessary because, although all religion and culture may more or less credibly express what common human experience authorizes concerning existence/ ultimate reality, how credibly any of it does this is to be determined only critically, by appealing to "the 'right' philosophy." Nor is this any less the case because "the 'right' philosophy" itself, as we have seen, is never simply given as a datum, but remains to be constructed ever anew by critical philosophical reflection on all that human beings think, say, and do, explicitly and also implicitly, in understanding themselves and leading their lives. And yet "the 'right' philosophy" is right, if it is, only because of its content, and because, or insofar as, its formulations credibly formulate its content: the self-understanding/understanding of existence/ultimate reality that is given implicitly with human existence itself, by simply existing as a human being.

...