Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Aspects of Atonement: What Did Jesus' Death on the Tree Accomplish?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
    Scripture says there is no trespass without law. Since law has been made obsolete, no trespass exists. If no trespass has occurred, then no petition for forgiveness is required. If you have a problem with that your problem is not with me, but with Paul.

    Scripture describes good behavior as full compliance with the law. Cursed are those who choose to live under law and do not observe all of it. Why put yourself under a curse. If you have a problem with this take it up with James and Paul.

    You seen very fond of quoting Scriptute out of context. The text is used in context with keeping promises, not with interpreting Scripture, which can be highly nuanced:

    James 5:12But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.


    He wanted the ruler to beg God for mercy. You may be unaware, but observing the law does do that to a person. That was before Christ was sent to the Cross. Notice that when Cornelius petitioned God, He brought Him to receiving Christ. Those who receive Christ receive mercy. Petition for forgiveness of sin is no longer required after that.


    James equates pledges of loyalty without expressions of it as the same as the cognizant response of demons: both are useless. You state that James and Paul taught different doctrine. I say that they teach the same doctrine. I don't know how you equate your view to be that of a loyal Christian.

    Abraham didn't understand God, but he was loyal and jumped when God asked him to. You may not understand that God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow, but what is required from you is loyalty. Understanding comes later.
    Do you think the Lord's prayer is now obsolete? We should no longer pray, "Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"?
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • Umm, the context proves exactly the point I'm making. As long as you are loyal to God you are "saved".

      The unmerciful servant broke faith with the merciful king, was disloyal.

      The servant wasn't adulterous, hadn't avoided visiting the poor, feeding the hungry. He just wasn't being loyal to his Master. He was being loyal to mammon.

      Now Jesus teaches us to pray for those who are loyal to mammon and hurt us in the process, like the people who are partial to the rich. This is because sometimes we ourselves adopt lifestyles that are loyal to mammon and have a deficit in our loyalty to God, because of bad teaching from church leaders who are contradictory and confused in their doctrine. I count myself in that group. Apart from seeing the church empty out because the true Gospel has been preached.

      However, when right teaching breaks through, when God's voice is heard, then we must respond to the call, and not be like the Israelites in the desert who put life over loyalty to God, inspite of being shown God's trust worthiness, unlike Abraham who responded well, with the same revelation of trust worthiness.

      Hebrews 3:******7Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
      ************“TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,

      ******8DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
      ************AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,

      ******9WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
      ************AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.

      ******10“THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
      ************AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,
      ************AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;

      ******11AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
      ************‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.’”

      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      Do you think the Lord's prayer is now obsolete? We should no longer pray, "Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
        Umm, the context proves exactly the point I'm making. As long as you are loyal to God you are "saved".

        The unmerciful servant broke faith with the merciful king, was disloyal.

        The servant wasn't adulterous, hadn't avoided visiting the poor, feeding the hungry. He just wasn't being loyal to his Master. He was being loyal to mammon.

        Now Jesus teaches us to pray for those who are loyal to mammon and hurt us in the process, like the people who are partial to the rich. This is because sometimes we ourselves adopt lifestyles that are loyal to mammon and have a deficit in our loyalty to God, because of bad teaching from church leaders who are contradictory and confused in their doctrine. I count myself in that group. Apart from seeing the church empty out because the true Gospel has been preached.

        However, when right teaching breaks through, when God's voice is heard, then we must respond to the call, and not be like the Israelites in the desert who put life over loyalty to God, inspite of being shown God's trust worthiness, unlike Abraham who responded well, with the same revelation of trust worthiness.

        Hebrews 3:******7Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
        ************“TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,

        ******8DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
        ************AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,

        ******9WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
        ************AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.

        ******10“THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
        ************AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,
        ************AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;

        ******11AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
        ************‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.’”
        Is there an answer in there somewhere to my question? Do you think the Lord's prayer is now obsolete? Should we no longer pray, "Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"? Why can't you simply answer a question?
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
          Scripture describes good behavior as full compliance with the law. Cursed are those who choose to live under law and do not observe all of it. Why put yourself under a curse. If you have a problem with this take it up with James and Paul.
          When Jesus describes the behavior of the Good Samaritan, is he not describing good behavior, without any mention of 'full compliance with the law?
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
            You seen very fond of quoting Scriptute out of context. The text is used in context with keeping promises, not with interpreting Scripture, which can be highly nuanced:

            James 5:12But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.
            This is funny! Did you understand the Greek. I was asking you to let your yes be yes and your no be no, exactly as James himself says. No need not add anything. I don't want you to add anything, just give a straight answer to James' (and my) questions:

            Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;

            ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον;


            Just answer ναί for 'yes' and οὔ for 'no'.
            Last edited by robrecht; 04-24-2014, 07:10 PM.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
              He wanted the ruler to beg God for mercy. You may be unaware, but observing the law does do that to a person. That was before Christ was sent to the Cross. Notice that when Cornelius petitioned God, He brought Him to receiving Christ. Those who receive Christ receive mercy. Petition for forgiveness of sin is no longer required after that.
              You did not answer the question: Are you trying to say that Jesus did not want the rich young ruler to follow the commandments?
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                You state that James and Paul taught different doctrine.
                Nope, I did not say that, 'though I do believe James may have meant to correct some misinterpretations of what Paul said. Please try to stop misquoting me.

                Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                I say that they teach the same doctrine.
                Then why won't you simply answer his questions with a simple 'yes' or 'no'?

                Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                I don't know how you equate your view to be that of a loyal Christian.
                Actually, you don't seem to even know what my view is, as attested once again above. And, even 'though you do not know my view or cannot keep yourself from misrepresenting it, if you do know it, you once again sink to ad hominem statements about whether or not I'm a loyal Christian. Are you proud of your behavior? Or does it not matter to you because you think the moral law has been nullified?

                Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                Abraham didn't understand God, but he was loyal and jumped when God asked him to. You may not understand that God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow, but what is required from you is loyalty. Understanding comes later.
                I will continue to bless you and pray that you might come to understand and not misrepresent.

                יברכך יהוה וישמרך׃ יאר יהוה פניו אליך ויחנך׃ ישא יהוה פניו אליך וישם לך שלום׃
                Last edited by robrecht; 04-24-2014, 07:37 PM.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • originally Posted by footwasher
                  Umm, the context proves exactly the point I'm making. As long as you are loyal to God you are "saved".

                  The unmerciful servant broke faith with the merciful king, was disloyal.

                  The servant wasn't adulterous, hadn't avoided visiting the poor, feeding the hungry. He just wasn't being loyal to his Master. He was being loyal to mammon.

                  Now Jesus teaches us to pray for those who are loyal to mammon and hurt us in the process, like the people who are partial to the rich. This is because sometimes we ourselves adopt lifestyles that are loyal to mammon and have a deficit in our loyalty to God, because of bad teaching from church leaders who are contradictory and confused in their doctrine. I count myself in that group. Apart from seeing the church empty out because the true Gospel has been preached.

                  However, when right teaching breaks through, when God's voice is heard, then we must respond to the call, and not be like the Israelites in the desert who put life over loyalty to God, inspite of being shown God's trust worthiness, unlike Abraham who responded well, with the same revelation of trust worthiness.

                  Hebrews 3:******7Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
                  ************“TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,

                  ******8DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
                  ************AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,


                  ******9WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
                  ************AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.

                  ******10“THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
                  ************AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,
                  ************AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;

                  ******11AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
                  ************‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.’”

                  robrecht replied:
                  Is there an answer in there somewhere to my question? Do you think the Lord's prayer is now obsolete? Should we no longer pray, "Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"? Why can't you simply answer a question?
                  Actually there is no answer for you there because the answer is only for believers. For unbelievers, there is only law:

                  1 Timothy 1:1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,
                  ******2To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

                  ******3As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 5But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

                  ******8But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

                  Let me place this separately, so you can read it without getting mixed up:

                  The law is not made for the righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious,


                  Originally Posted by footwasher
                  Scripture describes good behavior as full compliance with the law. Cursed are those who choose to live under law and do not observe all of it. Why put yourself under a curse. If you have a problem with this take it up with James and Paul.

                  When Jesus describes the behavior of the Good Samaritan, is he not describing good behavior, without any mention of 'full compliance with the law?
                  But good behavior isn't possible by observing the law, so what the Good Samaritan was doing was being loyal to God and not mammon, the way of liberty and love, not in formal rules, fixed letters, black and white instructions, but in spirit, alignment with what God is, loyal to His worldview, ideology.


                  Originally Posted by footwasher
                  You seen very fond of quoting Scriptute out of context. The text is used in context with keeping promises, not with interpreting Scripture, which can be highly nuanced:

                  James 5:12But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.

                  This is funny! Did you understand the Greek. I was asking you to let your yes be yes and your no be no, exactly as James himself says. No need not add anything. I don't want you to add anything, just give a straight answer to James' (and my) questions:

                  Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;

                  ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον;

                  Just answer ναί for 'yes' and οὔ for 'no'.
                  If I was promising to do something for you, I'd say 'yes'or 'no'. Here I'm interpreting Scripture, where a firm 'yes' can be used against me, like so: "You said that the Law was obsolete, yet you say a disciple is obligated to follow the law of liberty! " So I have to qualify my replies, especially with a newbie to reformed theology, like you, who is bent in reaching atomistic debating points of victory, rather than patiently working to coherent, holistic understanding. Why live with paradoxes, mysteries and contradictions, the safe shelter for Pharisees, just as politics is the refuge for scoundrels, when we have peace and assurance within reach, through the leading of the Spirit?

                  Originally Posted by footwasher
                  He wanted the ruler to beg God for mercy. You may be unaware, but observing the law does do that to a person. That was before Christ was sent to the Cross. Notice that when Cornelius petitioned God, He brought Him to receiving Christ. Those who receive Christ receive mercy. Petition for forgiveness of sin is no longer required after that.

                  You did not answer the question: Are you trying to say that Jesus did not want the rich young ruler to follow the commandments?
                  He did want that, towards petitioning God:

                  Luke 18:13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

                  He keeps raising the bar, to get that response, even with the Pharisees.

                  Originally Posted by footwasher
                  You state that James and Paul taught different doctrine.

                  Nope, I did not say that, 'though I do believe James may have meant to correct some misinterpretations of what Paul said. Please try to stop misquoting me.

                  robrecht said (in a previous post):
                  I agree with what you are saying here, for the most part, but still I am not willing to say that James is wrong when he says that a person is not justified by faith alone:

                  "Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
                  The point is that reformed theology understands justification to be a phased project, a time bound, interactive checklist, requiring completion. like my cockpit checklist: Oil pressure > Check. Temp > Check.

                  Phase 1: hear Gospel > pledge of loyalty > come to the feast > Check
                  Phase 2: hear God's voice > show loyalty > accept testing > Check
                  Phase 3: hear God's voice > persevere in loyalty > put on wedding garments > accept the marks of Christ > Check

                  So justification is a state, a condition, speaking of facing requirements of compliance according to deeper understanding of the requirements, the same requirements Israel and Christ faced, in the wilderness. Paul was combating Judaizers, James fighting against protoGnostics, but their teachings were same. Paul was teaching loyalty without law keeping and James was teaching loyalty with demonstrations of that loyalty. So a person is saved by loyalty alone, against loyalty plus law keeping, as some rebellious ex-Pharisees insisted on. Do you understand that a statement, "he teaches a requirement for law keeping" is tantamount to saying that a person who teaches this has yet to reach realization of inadequacy?

                  Originally Posted by footwasher
                  I say that they teach the same doctrine.

                  Then why won't you simply answer his questions with a simple 'yes' or 'no'?
                  Tread carefully. A wrong step can shift you into legalism. I double check what I post to avoid drifting into heresy. So, no, Paul teaches justification, all phases of it, is by loyalty alone without law keeping. No, James teaches justification, all phases of it, is by loyalty alone, but a loyalty that is completed, demonstrated.

                  Originally Posted by footwasher
                  I don't know how you equate your view to be that of a loyal Christian.

                  Actually, you don't seem to even know what my view is, as attested once again above. And, even 'though you do not know my view or cannot keep yourself from misrepresenting it, if you do know it, you once again sink to ad hominem statements about whether or not I'm a loyal Christian. Are you proud of your behavior? Or does it not matter to you because you think the moral law has been nullified?
                  Then stop inferring what Christians should say.

                  Originally Posted by footwasher
                  Abraham didn't understand God, but he was loyal and jumped when God asked him to. You may not understand that God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow, but what is required from you is loyalty. Understanding comes later.

                  I will continue to bless you and pray that you might come to understand and not misrepresent.
                  Ditto.
                  Last edited by footwasher; 04-25-2014, 01:29 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Perhaps this thread should die in the name of love and peace(?).
                    For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                      Perhaps this thread should die in the name of love and peace(?).
                      Works for me. ... and faith.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                        Umm, the context proves exactly the point I'm making. As long as you are loyal to God you are "saved".

                        The unmerciful servant broke faith with the merciful king, was disloyal.

                        The servant wasn't adulterous, hadn't avoided visiting the poor, feeding the hungry. He just wasn't being loyal to his Master. He was being loyal to mammon.
                        I'm not sure quite what point you're making here. Adultery and failure to help the poor and hungry are actions against our neighbor. So is the servant's fairly to forgive, and in fact throwing the person in prison for a minor debt. The fact that God had forgiven him first makes that action particularly bad. But it still shares with the others a failure to love the neighbor. I also believe adultery and failure to help the poor are also disloyal, since they are violations of Jesus' commands. So it seems to me that all of the things listed are offenses both against our neighbor and Jesus.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                          I'm not sure quite what point you're making here. Adultery and failure to help the poor and hungry are actions against our neighbor. So is the servant's fairly to forgive, and in fact throwing the person in prison for a minor debt. The fact that God had forgiven him first makes that action particularly bad. But it still shares with the others a failure to love the neighbor. I also believe adultery and failure to help the poor are also disloyal, since they are violations of Jesus' commands. So it seems to me that all of the things listed are offenses both against our neighbor and Jesus.
                          Were Abraham and Rahab obeying the moral law, giving credence to the view that salvation is by faith plus moral law keeping, or loyalty and loyal action as James was trying to convey?

                          Comment

                          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                          Working...
                          X