As to Bahnsen and Van Til, Derrida and Nietzsche? Really? Your confused as to where presuppositional apologetics came from and are confusing Van Til with Barth. Presuppositional Apologetics originated in scripture, not in the vain philosophies of autonomous reasoning.
Two things here Chris:
a) Presuppositional apologetics is not the view of the reformers at all. They were common-sense realists of the pre-modern variety (think Thomas Aquinas with a more robust view of the fall).
b) The methods of presuppositionalism are exactly those of Kant and Nietzsche. The vocabulary of Van Tillian apologetics is lifted from 19th century continental philosophy. This is, I realize, a side note, but it shows that plenty of Christian apologists and theologians (who we respect and admire) have drawn on the insights and methods of non-believers. Augustine drew on Plato: Calvin drew on Cicero.
Canon cannot be settled without the text being settled since the canon is made up of the text.
Ok, so what was the text when canon was decided in the Early Church? What evidence do you have for this proposition? The problem is here that you're always asking a historical question and therefore the methods of historical-textual analysis are those which we use to determine it.
And as stated earlier, since modern textual criticism is a rejection of the Reformed view of Bibliology
And I disagree with this. You haven't shown how it is necessarily such---you lump methods together with motivations as if you can't use certain methods of analysis without an agenda of discrediting the Scriptures. This is just silly. I can use a vote to try and elect a Godly man or I can use it to vote in an ungodly man. I can use a rifle to defend myself against an evildoer or I can use it to murder. I can use transcendental argumentation to argue for the faith or to destroy the faith of others. And I can use modern textual-critical methods to help contend for the authority of Scripture, or I can use them to undermine it. There is nothing inherently bad about the methods of textual criticism---what's bad is using them wrongly.
Following your view, gnostic corruptions to the text of scripture are ok if Christians worked on those same texts whether they removed the gnostic corruptions or not.
Not at all---the question here is how we determine which version is the corrupted one (and I'm still waiting for your reasoning as to why you wouldn't accept the Peshitta despite the fact that it has been in continuous use since the early Church).
By the way, which edition of the TR are you defending?