Can you show us where Chafer or any other Dispensational Premillennialist mentions some other parenthesis? In the absence of any other asserted parenthesis the one on record is in fact the only one. Works both ways, His student.
I'm assuming this is a mistake as to what you think I was talking about.
It may be that a parenthesis is setting off what is an afterthought or a unimportant interruption in a sentence or, in this case, history. That would be the meaning of a person who says that the thing being described is "only a parenthesis". That is the apparent intention of the OP in saying it that way.
Definition of parenthesis
"An amplifying or explanatory word, phrase, or sentence inserted in a passage from which it is usually set off by punctuation."
There is a world of difference between saying that the parenthesis is the "only one", as you are saying, and saying that it is "only a parenthesis".
The parenthesis may well be one of if not the most important period or part of the overall program - thus the amplification.
I know of no dispensationalist who teaches that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the church age that followed is unimportant. Certainly the evangelical L. S. Chafer views it as the central point in God's program of history.
In fact - I know of no dispensationalist who says that anyone will enter the millennium who is not saved through a personal faith in Jesus Christ.
Nor do I know of any who says that anyone will be saved either before Christ, during the church age or in the millennium by any other means than the work of Jesus Christ being imputed to him by God.
By closing your post the way you did I deduce that your issue with me may be that you think me a dispensationalist and you don't like it.
It's a little like how I deduced the probable meaning of the OP's use of "only a parenthesis".
Works that way Josheb. Hope it clears it up for you.
