[T]he post-Reformation intellectualist notion that types are simply symbolic forms slapped onto reality and designed to teach us things... [source]This he contrasts with his own approach, which he describes as:
[A] Vantillian and arguably pre-modern view that “typology” is a revelation of the meaning of human life as imaging the life of God [source]Of course, one can easily detect the polemics implied by Jordan's definitions here, but the fact remains that there are some substantial differences between the two. And, as Jordan alludes (to Van Til), to a large extent, I believe this has something to do with ontological assumptions about God, man, and revelation.
Now, to be frank, I learned typology from Peter Leithart and James Jordan (with some helpful direction by Alastair Roberts). To a large extent, I'm inclined to take their side in the matter. But I realize that their view is a more or less minority viewpoint, so I am suspending judgment on the matter, weighing the merits of both positions over the next year or so.