In the search for the critical functions of theology, we can find a growing number of dilemmas, which come from the theology itself and from the modern knowledge about the world, which theology has to face, not only offering expected answers, but also formulating its own Christian doctrine proper for contemporary times and consistent with the Tradition of faith. The only way to present such a broad and difficult problem in a short paper is through a general perspective. The key to the systematization of the problem is by observing that the tasks of theology can be seen from four different perspectives, according to the distinction ad extra – ad intra. Astrong emphasis is put on the encounter between theology and science. The attempt to make predictions about the future is based on analysis of the contemporary situation in theology and on the extrapolation of existing trends for the near future.

Lessing’s question about knowing God (the Absolute) in history has been a con-stant challenge for modern theology. The article collates views of Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper on this subject. A clear difference was noticed: Kasper decidedly gives priority to history and revelation in it, whereas Ratzinger puts stress on the idea of the priority of God and in its light interprets revelation and history. Two different types of theology emerge here. They manifest themselves in different ways of present-ing Christology. The former originates from the historical witness to Jesus and on this basis strives to construct a coherent picture of the incarnated Son of God’s identity. The latter originates from – resulting from the Church’s faith – an assumption about the unity of the Scripture and presents in this light the witness of the Gospel to Jesus. A thesis is proposed that both types of theology need each other, although it is not possible to harmonize them.

The paper assumes that the modern period differs from earlier epochs in terms of thinking about universals: in the ancient and medieval dispute about universals, the general took precedence, and the subject of debates was the identity of what was individual. Ockham’s revolution of thinking in this area is one of the significant points of the beginning modernity. In this context, it is reasonable to ask to what extent classical soteriological concepts, created in the ancient climate marked by the primacy of universals, can be understood today, in an atmosphere of nominalism. After presenting the specificity of this issue, the article discusses three works of three authors, who are significant for the history of soteriology (Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm). The conclusions do not confirm the simple thesis about the indisputable primacy of thinking about “man as human nature” in the case of Athanasius and Augustine. But Anselm’s much later theory is consistently based on such thinking. Hence, the reflections of the first two authors, insofar as they emphasize the interpersonal salvific bond between God and man, seem to be still understandable today. On the other hand, Anselm’s conception, based on the perception of the work of salvation as an impact on human nature, easily exposes itself to narrow interpretations, which are inconsistent with the original intention of its author. Heil der Person oder der menschlichen Natur? Über ein Problem der heutigen Rezeption der traditionellen soteriologischen Motive.