You certainly don’t have to use the term. Van Til primarily expressed it in different terms; “Christian theism as a unit”, “Christian life-and-world view” (which is similar), “Christian totality picture”, “Christian faith as a whole”, or the like. If it is understood that this is what we mean when we say “worldview”, all is well. It must, however, be distinguished from a mere “worldview apologetic”, or the Kantian “weltanschauung”, and be placed within the proper context, if you’re going to use it as a Reformed, Covenantal apologist. The Reformed worldview is the worldview where Scripture Alone is “the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” As Warfield puts it, it is “Christianity come to its own”. It speaks to all of life, and does so perfectly. Its antithesis is the non-Christian worldview – and on its particular basis, also has something to say about all of life. It is these two “worldviews” which which we have to deal; as long as it is understood what is meant by “worldview”.
We are speaking of the “nature of facts”, not of the “facts themselves”, as if facts are simply “there”, and uninterpreted. When speaking of a worldview, you are speaking of everything the worldview posits – be it metaphysics, epistemology, or physics.
CH: Answering an Objection to Christian “Worldview”
CH: Did Van Til set Christianity alongside other worldviews?
CH: The Unfortunate Case of the Missing Argument
CH: Adventures in Missing the Antithesis
CH: Why Shouldn’t Paul Bird Choose Hats?
CH: On Speaking to Brick Walls
GPTS Theological Conference – K. Scott Oliphint: The Reformed Worldview