The methodology used in patrology - patristics results from its classification into purely theological disciplines. Before Vaticanum II the term patrology was used in a historical-philosophical sense, which led to perceiving patrology as a historical field of study. The study dealt with the old Christian writings from the chronological and literary point of view. This approach implied using research methodology typical of historical sciences. Since the Vatican Council II patrology has been considered a branch of theology and the name patristics has been used more often. Gradually its close association with dogmatics has been observed. The aim of patristics is to present theological thoughts of the Church Fathers. To achieve this objective a researcher has to carry out a thorough analysis of the Church Fathers’ writings by means of theological and literary criteria within the historical context. By resorting to the teaching of the Church Fathers patristics should show the development of theological thinking without identifying itself with Church history, the history of dogmas or ancient Christian literature.

Methodology of New Testament studies reflects the way(s) which are commonly accepted by scholars working with the second part of the Christian Bible in order to solve difficulties and problems connected with the proper reading, understanding and interpretation of biblical text. Taking into consideration the important document of Pontifical Biblical Commission Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (1993), the article describes the fundamental distinctions between approaches and methods as two general modes of enquiry of the Bible. The special attention is given towards the historical-critical method, stressing that her use is necessary in the scientific studies of the four Gospels as well as the other canonical books. Methodology of New Testament studies should also reflect the serious knowledge of the interpretation given by the Church Fathers and the Wirkungsgeschichte of the Bible.

This paper focuses on three issues. First, it is about the context and environment of pre-Nicene theology. It is emphasized that pre-Nicene theology did not neglect ca-techetical and liturgical reflection (ad intra) while at the same time successfully ente-red into a critical and creative dialogue with both the Semitic and Greco-Roman world where first Christians lived (ad extra). For contemporary theology its means that it cannot reject historical reasoning, placed in space and time. The second part stresses that, in spite of different situations and all historical and cultural contexts, theology before Nicea was above all an understanding of Sacred Scripture to which the key is the Risen Christ as the source and definitive fulfilment of the inspired writings. Finally, the third part of the paper focuses on the existential and spiritual experience from which pre-Nicene theology originated. For this theology the Gospel of Christ is not just the rule of faith but also the rule of life. This leads to a conclusion that a contem-porary theologian is a to take up an existential-personalistic reflection on Revelation using the historical-hermeneutic method .