systematic theology

there should definitely be a bridge between theology and philosophy. however, the bridge should not be from philosophy to theological philosophy, but from theology to philosophical (or systematic) theology.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." - 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (NIV)

faith is not the bridge between philosophy and theological philosophy. it is not the bridge between what we think we know (philosophy) and what we don't think we know (theological philosophy).

rather, faith is the bridge between theology and philosophical theology. it is the bridge between what we know (theology) and what we know that we know (philosophical theology).

"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NIV)

it is difficult enough barking up the right tree (and branch!) of theology (old vs new perspectives on paul, calvinism vs arminianism, continuationism vs cessationism etc); what more barking up the wrong tree of philosophy?