Romans 3:11 and Arminianism

One of the Arminian arguments is that God prepares men’s hearts- read “every single person in the world”- to seek him; each individual then chooses whether to accept God or not. God’s work is called “prevenient grace.”  I completely reject this teaching, as it has no basis whatever in Scripture. In particular, Romans 3:11 does not come remotely close to giving a slither of light for the above teaching.

Romans 3:11

​​​​​​​there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.

οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν

ouk estin ho sunion, ouk estin ho ekdzayton ton theon

In Romans 3:11, the question is over the nature of the participles (verbal adjectives).  The two participles in question are ὁ συνίων (“to understand”) and ὁ ἐκζητῶν (“to seek out”).  At first glance they may function as periphrastic participles, for two criteria are met: both participles are nominative, and both are conjoined with the present form of “to be”: estin…sunion….estin…ekdzayton.  Even so, the presence of the article with both participles, with no other discernible substantive in proximity, necessitates that both present participles function as substantives. They translate, “the one who understands” and “the one who seeks out.” 

Even though these participles function more as nouns than as verbs, they still retain verbal elements which are active. Both participles are in the present tense.  Thus, the question arises as to how we ought to translate the present tense: should the translation of the present tense give the meanings, “the one who continuously seeks out” and “the one who continuously understands”?  Often the present tense has the meaning of continuous current activity.  Yet, it is grammatically naïve to argue that the present tense denotes or means (automatically) continuous action; the context and qualifying words tell us whether the present tense action is continuous or not.  Does the context relate that men continuously do not understand/seek God?  Is the thought that men continuously seek God but do not find him?  The answer may seem obvious, for men do not seek out God period!  That being said, we’re dealing with grammar here, but more particularly with a doctrine (or a point of logic) that is built upon the present tense bearing the import of ‘continuously.’  If men do not seek out God ‘continuously,’ may this be read to imply that although men may fail to look for God ‘continuously,’ they have indeed sought out for God sporadically, at certain times?   We can say immediately that such a conclusion is a theological extrapolation, and it certainly is not a contextual, exegetical option.  In other words, such theology might be true- for the sake of argument- but it is not present in Romans 3:11; to say that the text implies men seek out God flies-in-the-face of the prima facie force of the text.  Also, the present tense in the participles is not durative but gnomic.  The gnomic present (as any gnomic) represents a general truth, concept, or fact, that is a status or condition that is always applicable; or negatively speaking, the gnomic does not focus upon actual time, activities that are temporal in nature, actions coming and going.  “God is love” is gnomic, because it is true of God at all times, without the necessity of specifying “a” particular time, or without suggesting that this condition may change in time or through actions.  Wallace writes, “the present participle…routinely belong [to the gnomic].” [GGBB, 523.]  He adds, “The normal use of the present tense in didactic literature…is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications.” [Ibid., 525.]  A key to identify the gnomic, says Wallace, is to insert the words, “as a general, timeless fact.” [Ibid.]  In the case of Romans 3:11, “as a general, timeless fact, no one understands or seeks God”.  This seems an appropriate enough translation and tells us that the participles are gnomic.  That being said, the possibility of men perhaps seeking God is further obviated, grammatically speaking, by the presence of the gnomic.

Nor will it do to cite Romans 1:18ff. as proof that men seek out God- which is a typical Arminian argument.  The text in question refers to the Gentiles knowing God via creation (vv19-20).  We are told from the outset, in summary, gnomic form, that men suppress this revelation and knowledge (v18).  Indeed, not only did they suppress this knowledge, they exchanged it for a lie, for untruth, for false gods and idols (vv21-23).  As a consequence, God gave these sinners over to their idolatry, confirming them in their darkness and wickedness (vv24-31). The Arminian reading horribly misreads the text, equating the knowledge of God with proof that man has sought out God. According to the text, nothing is further from the truth!