Often here I refer to TF Torrance’s labeling of Classical Arminianism and Calvinism as logico-causal; meaning that these approaches feel the need to diminish tensions — relative to certain doctrines — and fill in the “gaps,” so to speak. Here Robert T. Walker — Torrance’s nephew and editor of his books Incarnation & Atonement — explains how Torrance believes that we should avoid such approaches (the context that this footnote is made in is the section in Atonement where TFT is addressing both universalism and limited atonement [both errors]):

For Torrance, apprehension of the cross involves a conversion of the reason in which we bow our own reason before the reality and mystery of Christ and seek to understand it (as far as we may) out of itself without reducing it to logical schemata of our own making which inevitably break it up into separate elements to distort it. We need to hold together what scripture holds together, refusing to categorise it in ways that distort that wholeness. If we cannot understand how scripture holds together certain things which we find difficult (such as the unconditional love and forgiveness of God for all, the finished work of Christ, the gospel imperative to repent and believe, and the fact that some refuse and are judged by the very gospel that offers them life) then it is not open to us to resolve the tension through a man-made logical schema which emphasises some elements as [sic] the expense of others. We need to be crucified with Christ in our natural reason and through the transforming of our mind begin to penetrate into ‘the interior logic of scripture’ so that we may learn to think as scripture thinks and hold together what it holds together in Christ. Both universalism and limited atonement for Torrance fail to do that. . . . (Thomas F. Torrance, ed. Robert T. Walker, Atonement, 188 fn. 70)

This dovetails with another post I’ve written on Theological Exegesis. Furthermore, it presses one of the reasons why Torrance and Evangelical Calvinists believe it is necessary to “apparently” let certain things dangle. I know one issue that really bothers some of you who read here (not all of you) is how EC’rs can hold that if Jesus died for everyone (which the Incarnation demands, per its ‘interior logic’ — which Torrance argues in this section of “Atonement”) how it also can be true that not everyone is saved. Classic Calvinists hold to a prior causal metaphysic behind the back of Jesus’ revelation that necessitates that if Jesus died for someone then built into that, that someone “will” get saved.  Torrance is saying that crucified and resurrected wisdom is at odds with such logico-causal schemas, which (by inference — this is my estimation) put to death theology of glories (or man-based speculation) that seek to “proclaim” things that the Gospel itself neither demands nor imposes upon us categorically. Classical Arminians have problems with their own “theologies of glory,” which Torrance does address . . . maybe another time.