Here is an apologist named Jon Klaus making the case that Van Tilians ought to accept axioms:

https://twitter.com/_languagegames/status/1703516640644932082

Here is Jimmy Stephens’s response to him:

I would mount a threefold objection. First, exegetical. Insofar as revelational epistemology (hereafter, RE) aims to represent the Biblical data concerning man’s psychology, noetic structure, etc, one should think God’s sovereign acts of revelation, not man’s choice to assume, is the causal and justificatory termination of our knowledge. The mistake of this author, like so many, is to assume that all or even most knowledge is inferential in nature, rather than immediate.

Second, more on the epistemology side of things, the author has, in my estimation, simply conceded the argument. One man’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens. The fact that one’s entire epistemology rests on assumption makes Christianity regrettably subjectivist.

Finally, I am not alone in thinking that this sort of Cartesian deductivism is far and wide of a correct reading of Van Til. It fails to appreciate Van Til’s Calvinism wrt the sensus Dei, and it fails to appreciate his idealist influences.