Yes, he's in substantial agreement with Van Til--and that's an excellent book for understanding CVT.

Van Til was excellent at rooting out and rejecting metaphysical dualism (and its downstream "dualisms" in epistemology and ethics). He was taking aim, largely, at a Thomistic nature/grace dualism in the very beginning of man's creation and the corresponding covenant (read: donum superadditum, the "fall" as mere privation, etc.). That's true enough and Bahnsen picked up on that. But that rejection of metaphysical dualism spilled over into rejecting the "dualism" between the common kingdom and the redemptive kingdom, and the "dualism" of ages--between this age and the age to come, between the 'already' and the 'not yet.' He left no room for natural law, for so-called 'common grace,' no room for a valid and non-theocratic world system in this age--no room for us to be pilgrims on the way, so to speak. To borrow a recent interaction on nostr--he places us marching on Jericho at Joshua's side rather than praying 'thy kingdom come!' within the walls at Rahab's side. (Yes...it's millennial views...but millennial viws are a function of one's covenant theology, IMO.)

Some (most?) versions of 'sacred/profane' and 'common/holy' or 'two swords' or 'two cities' etc. are rooted in Thomas' metaphysical dualism, and Bahnsen (and CVT) were right to reject them on those grounds. Call it a misunderstanding of the 'what'. But when the distinction betweeen the sacred and the secular, or the redemptive and the common, are rooted instead in Christ's inaugurated (but not yet consummated) redemptive kingdom, in an exaltation of the spirituality of the church (as opposed to some political motivation), then we're also on the right track with the 'when'. Which is to say: we get the proper 'what' with CVT (and Bahnsen) -- but we need to plant it firmly in a proper 'when' with Vos.

Hope that made some sense.