Some maintain that presuppositionalism is really no different from post-modernism because it asserts that there is no objective source to lay aside our presuppositions and actually know the world apart from any worldviews. That we are merely stuck in our towers, bubbles, etc with no objective way to decide any of these things.

This is clearly not what presuppositionalists are stating when they say that no neutrality exists. While there are no non-worldview-dependent truths, there is no reason to think this is meant to say they’re no common epistemological norms. The claim isn’t that there is no way to objectively reason about the world, but rather that differing worldviews will disagree about what it means to do such.

Furthermore, there is no interaction with Bahnsen’s point from the problem of the criterion in his famous lecture on the issue.

I also find it also very implausible that presuppositionalists could ever be faulted for holding to post-modernism given the fact that they believe God’s interpretation of the facts is necessary for intelligibility. Usually, a post-modernist will maintain there is no known comprehensive interpretation of the facts and that because of such we aren’t in a position to state which one of us is correct. We lack the greater context of all facts and therefore are at the whims of ignorance about the ultimate truth of this world. That is exactly the opposite of the claims of Van Tilians. They claim God has comprehensive knowledge and therefore it is only by knowing him we can escape subjectivism and skepticism.

This is also why Van Tilians are great at understanding post-modernists and critiquing them. Dr. Christopher Watkins:

http://spirited-tech.com/2019/09/18/derrida-foucault-and-the-bible/