In another thread, MW asked: The term "1689 Federalism" was coined approximately 5 years ago to describe the majority view of the 17th century particular baptists. It was a view that had been neglected/lost. 20th century Reformed Baptists were not familiar with it, thus a label was necessary to distinguish it from the view that was developed in the latter half of the 20th century. The label "1689 Federalism" was not intended to convey that the formulations of 20th century Reformed Baptists was contrary to the confession. The wording of the confession is broad enough to embrace both views. Why was "1689 Federalism" used to describe one view and not the other? Because "1689 Federalism" explains the rationale behind the change in language of the 2LBCF with regards to covenant theology (whereas Waldron's view would not) and because it was the vast majority view (I believe only one author has been found to have held something closer to the modern 20th cent/Waldron view). Waldron has never claimed the "1689 Federalism" label. In his newly revised Exposition of the confession, Waldron says "1689 Federalism" does not claim Waldron is unconfessional in his view. Samuel Renihan has a helpful post on this. He concludes So if you hear someone using the label "1689 Federalism" it refers to the idea that only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. It does not refer to Waldron's view (but neither does it claim Waldron's view is unconfessional). In the future, those with questions about 1689 Federalism should consult the website 1689federalism.com. This particular question/issue is addressed in the FAQ there. http://www.1689federalism.com/faq2/ Hope that helps clarify.