Cornelius did in Acts.10! Maybe Romans 3:11 is hy[per]bolic to make a point that both Jews and Gentiles are both equally in sin.
A fundamental rule of Scriptural interpretation is that when you can choose between a straightforward interpretation and an obscure interpretation the former is to be preferred. The straightforward interpretation is so clear in this case that the text needs no elaboration: "No one seeks for God." To respond "Cornelius did" is to accuse God of contradication.
There is at least one simpler alternative to understanding Acts 10. Cornelius was a "devout man who feared God with all his household" [Acts 10:2a] because God had already regenerated him. He was already a believer, but one who lacked much knowledge. God singled him out, as the passage indicates, as the first Gentile to give the Holy Spirit to once Peter had arrived, in order to teach the Jews that God doesn't show favoritism. Cornelius' seeking was the response to, and not the cause of, his regeneration.
This view of the text may not be the correct understanding, but it's a reasonable possibility, unlike saying that God really meant "Some people seek God" when he said "No one seeks God."
After all, not all men are as wicked as the description of those who follow in vs 13-18.
This is an astonishing claim: Although the Bible says men are thoroughly wicked -- (None is righteous, no, not one, no one understands, no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one....[Romans 3:10-12]) -- you know better.
You may know better, but I don't. All I know is that the Bible says we're so totally depraved that we're all "dead in sin." My imagination may be too unenlightened, but I just can't see how one could be more wicked than "dead in sin." Maybe "really and truly dead in sin?" Maybe, "I meant it when I said 'dead in sin.'"... But how are these any more clear, any more emphatic than all the "No ones" above?
Amen!
The straightforward interpretation is so clear in this case that the text needs no elaboration: "No one seeks for God."
No, because you are not looking at the entire context of that statement!
Taken in its entire context (not just 'no one seeks God') you would see that Paul is using figurative language in describing all men.
Now, while it is true we area all sinners, and when you break one law you break them all, nevertheless, the discription of the sinners listed did not fit, say the 'rich young ruler' who it is said, Jesus loved (Mk.10:21) but turned away due to his love of money.
To respond "Cornelius did" is to accuse God of contradication.
Not at all.
You are taking the verse out of context.
The fact is that Cornilus is considered a 'devout man' whose prayer God answers by sending to Peter to receive the Gospel.
He is not saved when he is sent since he gets saved as is related by Peter in Acts.11:14,
Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved
There is at least one simpler alternative to understanding Acts 10. Cornelius was a "devout man who feared God with all his household" [Acts 10:2a] because God had already regenerated him. He was already a believer, but one who lacked much knowledge. God singled him out, as the passage indicates, as the first Gentile to give the Holy Spirit to once Peter had arrived, in order to teach the Jews that God doesn't show favoritism. Cornelius' seeking was the response to, and not the cause of, his regeneration.
That does not work because it says on Acts 11:24, 'thou shalt be saved,
Thus, Cornilus could not have already been regenerated before he was sent to Peter, and thus 'saved'.
This view of the text may not be the correct understanding, but it's a reasonable possibility, unlike saying that God really meant "Some people seek God" when he said "No one seeks God."
No one seeks God is a hyperbolic statement showing the depraved state the Jew was really in, while thinking he was close to God.
Paul turns around and states that the Jew does have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.(Rom.10:2)
He (Paul) then points out while the Jew was seeking God with works and not faith, God was going to manifest Himself to the Gentile (who did not seek Him Rom.10:20) to provoke the Jew to jealousy!
After all, not all men are as wicked as the description of those who follow in vs 13-18. This is an astonishing claim: Although the Bible says men are thoroughly wicked -- (None is righteous, no, not one, no one understands, no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one....[Romans 3:10-12]) -- you know better.
The description given does not fit all men, which even Calvinists acknowledge.
While we are sinners, not all men not fall to the level of depravity as described by Paul.
What Paul is doing is bringing the Jew into awareness of his need for a saviour through a figurative language.
You may know better, but I don't. All I know is that the Bible says we're so totally depraved that we're all "dead in sin." My imagination may be too unenlightened, but I just can't see how one could be more wicked than "dead in sin." Maybe "really and truly dead in sin?" Maybe, "I meant it when I said 'dead in sin.'"... But how are these any more clear, any more emphatic than all the "No ones" above?
Yes, we are 'dead' in sin, but that just means we are separated from God.
We need to be saved since we cannot do anything to save ourselves.
However, spiritual death doesn't mean our will is destroyed.
God still gives revelation of Himself through nature for man to desire Him or reject Him (Psa.19, Rom.1:20)
Thus, you might say, that it is always God seeking man and man responding (by seeking more of God) or rejecting that initiative on the part of God. (Jn.12:32)