Bad to the Bone: Is There a Natural Knowledge of Human Corruption?
“The doctrine of original sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith.” -Reinhold Niebuhr[i]
Christians often debate the scope of our natural knowledge of theological verities. Do we have such knowledge concerning the scriptural teaching of innate human corruption? For confessional Lutherans, the way to seek an answer is straight-forward. We apply Scripture and sound reason, as Martin Luther did at the Diet of Worms.
The Scriptures declare that all people know our moral guilt, based upon natural law. As Paul explained in Romans, the Gentiles know there is right and wrong, since the Law is “written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Rom. 2:15, NKJV). And all people know there is a death penalty when we do wrong. The Gentiles know “the righteous judgment of God,” that those who engage in immorality “are deserving of death” (Rom. 1:32). Thus, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
Romans makes it clear that humans are corrupt and unable to act as God requires, and it suggests that humans should have some awareness of this fact. Can we find corroboration of this scriptural teaching by looking at world history?[ii] Have there been any learned people, outside of Judaism and Christianity, aware of human corruption? This article will show that several respected ancient writers recognized defects in the human heart without the help of the Scriptures. Before we look at these authors, however, we must examine what the Lutheran Confessions say about this matter.
The Lutheran Confessions
At first glance, the Lutheran Confessions may seem to suggest that there is no natural knowledge of human corruption. Regarding original sin, Luther writes in the Smalcald Articles that "this hereditary sin is such a deep corruption of nature that no reason can understand it. Rather, it must be believed from the revelation of Scripture.”[iii] In the Formula's article on original sin, it says, "this damage cannot be fully described. . . . It cannot be understood by reason, but only from God’s Word.”[iv] The Formula’s Solid Declaration elaborates: “reason doesn’t know and understand what this hereditary evil is. . . . As the Smalcald Articles say it must be learned and believed from the revelation of Scripture.”[v]
What are we to make of these statements? I believe the confessions are affirming that the source, depth, and consequences of original sin cannot be understood based upon our natural knowledge. The topic can only be fully understood from scriptural revelation. However, there is no denial here that some knowledge of human corruption can be acquired by all people. It is true that due to original sin itself, people by nature are reluctant to acknowledge the intensity and scope of human corruption, which humbles human pride at its core. But it is also true that the ubiquitous wickedness and human-inflicted suffering in the world should give any perceptive soul some inkling that all is not right with the hearts of men. That some men have recognized this moral malaise is confirmed by an examination of astute Gentile thinkers such as Plato, Hsun Tzu, Seneca, and Plutarch. It is to these thinkers that I now turn.
Plato (428–348 B.C.)
Plato was born into an aristocratic family in the prosperous city of Athens, Greece. A disciple of Socrates, Plato founded the Academy, the first European university, which continued in operation for over 900 years. At the Academy, Plato taught many young philosophers, including his most famous pupil, Aristotle. In turn, Aristotle was the tutor of Alexander the Great, the Macedonian king who conquered the Persian Empire and spread Greek ideals throughout the known world.
In addition to being a link in such an important chain, Plato was perhaps the most brilliant of the ancient Greek philosophers. He synthesized Greek thought around the central theme of virtue. He also formulated, in his dialogue The Republic, a description of an ideal state.
Despite his apparently idealistic framework, Plato did not romanticize human motives. Instead, he recognized that every person is guilty of the ultimate moral failing—excessive “love of self.”[vi] This is the gravest of all faults.[vii] It is the source of our misdeeds. It is “inborn” in the souls of men.[viii] This offense is inherently self-indulgent. The eye of love is blind where “the beloved,” self, is concerned. And so a person proves a bad judge of right, good, and honor in his own life, expecting more praise than he deserves.[ix]
Plato also recognized that self-love can never ultimately be eradicated. In all of us, even in good people, there is “a terrible, fierce, and lawless brood of desires.”[x] Instead, the best we can do is to recognize the wisdom and benefits of virtue, and live morally based upon self-interest. The temperate, courageous, and wise person has more pleasure and less pain than the cowardly, foolish, and licentious person.[xi] Thus, the person who has virtue is “absolutely and unreservedly happier” than the person who lives in depravity.[xii]
Hsun Tzu (312–238 B.C.)
Hsun Tzu is a major figure in Chinese philosophy. Along with Confucius and Mencius, he was one of the great founders of Confucianism. He was the first Confucian to produce a book rather than leaving sayings for later compilation, and his writing brought a new intellectual rigor to Confucian debate.
Hsun Tzu grew up in Chao in northern China. At the age of fifty, he traveled to Ch’i, the city where the leading Chinese scholars congregated. He was quickly recognized as their most eminent philosopher, and achieved renown for his trailblazing work in psychology, law, and logic. He also challenged the assumption of many Chinese philosophers that human nature is essentially good.
According to Hsun Tzu, those who champion the goodness of humanity do not know “the nature of man.”[xiii] In other words, they do not understand “the distinction between man’s nature and his effort.”[xiv] Hsun Tzu concluded that “the nature of man is evil.” Our “inborn nature is to seek for gain” and to be “envious and hate others.” To follow this nature “will inevitably result in strife and rapacity, combine with rebellion and disorder, and end in violence.”[xv] Hsun Tzu also taught that this defect in human nature could be corrected by the “civilizing influence of teachers and laws.”[xvi] However, he did not explain how goodness could be expected from teachers and lawgivers who themselves have evil natures.
Seneca (4 B.C.–A.D. 65)
Lucius Seneca was born in Cordoba, Spain, the son of renowned Roman orator Marcus Seneca. Lucius Seneca received a thorough education in rhetoric and philosophy in Rome, where he became a champion of Stoic philosophy. He developed exceptional skills as a dramatist and writer, and is today considered one of the leading figures in Latin literature.
In A.D. 49, Seneca was appointed tutor to Nero, who became emperor in the year 54. Much of the decency and moderation of Nero’s early rule is attributed to the rational guidance of Seneca. By the year 62, however, Seneca had lost all influence with the emperor, who had degenerated into a sadist and a tyrant. Nero sought to confiscate Seneca’s family wealth, and attempted to have Seneca poisoned. In 65, there was an unsuccessful attempt to kill Nero, and Seneca had a connection to the assassins. This was all the excuse Nero needed. Seneca was immediately condemned, and he committed suicide by imperial order.
Seneca saw great cruelty in his life, but he did not put the blame on a few bad apples. Instead, he had a realistic view of the human heart. No sensible person will hate wrongdoers—“otherwise he will hate himself.” A person having difficulty with this concept should reflect, “how many times he offends against morality, how many of his acts stand in need of pardon.” No one is found who can “acquit himself.”[xvii] We are all wicked; “each man will find in his own breast the fault which he censures in another.”[xviii] Consequently, Seneca concluded that humanity needs divine moral help. “[T]here is no good man without God.”[xix] No one has strength of himself to emerge from wickedness—“someone must hold forth a hand; someone must draw us out.”[xx]
Plutarch (A.D. 46–125)
Plutarch was born in Greece, and educated in Athens. After traveling widely in the Roman Empire, he lectured in Rome on moral philosophy. He was a popular teacher, and was known by his students as a genial guide and philosopher. Like Seneca, there is no evidence that Plutarch was influenced by Judaism or Christianity.
Plutarch wrote numerous biographies, including Parallel Lives of Illustrious Greeks and Romans, which compared the lives of famous historical figures. Shakespeare closely followed Plutarch’s lives when composing his plays on Roman history, including Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra.
Plutarch’s books portrayed character and its moral implications. Character development, he wrote, starts with an accurate assessment of the challenge. We have a mental handicap, causing us to reach for too much. “The culprit is self-love, which impels men to crave primacy and victory in everything.”[xxi] All human nature bears its crop of “contention, jealousy and envy.”[xxii] In fact, he concluded, it is impossible to find “any deed that is faultless as regards its virtue.”[xxiii]
Summary
Both the Scriptures and human experience demonstrate that all people can generally see symptoms of the corruption of human nature-–i.e. original sin. As confessional Lutherans, we can build on this common knowledge to show the need for the Gospel, pointing people to the Scriptures for a thorough understanding of this vital topic.
[i] Reinhold Niebuhr, Man’s Nature and His Communities: Essays on the Dynamics and Enigmas of Man’s Personal and Social Existence (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), 24.
[ii] This approach is analogous to the parol evidence rule in contract law, where ambiguities in an agreement may be resolved through extrinsic (external) evidence.
[iii] Smalcald Articles, Third Part, Article 1.
[iv] Formula of Concord, Epitome 1.3.
[v] Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration 1.3.
[vi] Plato, Laws in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, trans. E. A. Taylor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996) 1318.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Plato, Republic in Collected Dialogues, trans. Paul Shorey, 799.
[xi] Laws, 1320.
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] Wing-Tsit Chan, ed. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, trans. Wing-Tsit Chan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963) 129.
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] Ibid., 128.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] Seneca, Moral Essays vol. 1, trans. John Bascre (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963) 143.
[xviii] Ibid., 321.
[xix] Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, Section 41.
[xx] Ibid., Section 22.
[xxi] Plutarch, Selected Essays on Love, The Family, and The Good Life, trans. Moses Hadas (New York: Mentor 1957) 177.
[xxii] Plutarch, Moralia vol. 2, trans. Frank Cole Babbitt (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962) 35.
[xxiii] Ibid., vol. 6, 5.
Britton Weimer (JD, University of Minnesota Law School) is a confessional Lutheran (WELS) and a commercial attorney. He is the co-author of Britton Weimer and Paul Johnson, Searching for Answers: The Unquenchable Thirst (AMG Publishers 2002).