Unshaven and anonymous
I'll answer, though it's late and may be rather hurried.Thank you, this was extremely helpful for clarifying why premise 1 appears to be equivocal to some posters. Why I structured premise 1 the way I did is because I was of the understanding that we all agreed that the Reformed position denies two will[ing]s in God. This was mentioned specifically by @py3ak in posts 2 and 8, so I did not expect anyone to reply that there is an equivocation here.
But if I am understanding everyone correctly now, the point is that God's "ad extra willing" refers to something that is not "in God." Is this correct? If so, I believe this thread is making some progress and that you all are helping me better articulate the intuitive difficulty I am trying to get across.
I'm tempted to stop here and see whether everyone agrees with the above. I'll go ahead and assume everyone does agree with it (correct me if I'm wrong) and venture the next question that comes to mind: is there a causal relation between God's "ad intra" willing and "ad extra" willing?
(Off-topic, but I have also directed some questions at you, Ryan, and I don't think they've been answered. If you're able to reply to those it would be helpful to me.)
I still think there may be an equivocation on "willing" because it sometimes seems to refer to God's act, and sometimes to the specific realities brought into existence by that act. Ad extra means that it is not in God terminatively. What God wills ad extra terminates outside of himself. But the way it's expressed in your second paragraph it could sound like God is stepping outside of himself in order to will to create and the rest, and that definitely seems like an inadequate description! Or think about it like this. God's will refers to himself, and it refers to what-is-not-God. In reference to not-God, we call that ad extra. That is free, not only in the sense of lacking compulsion, but in the sense that it could theoretically have been different.
I would say that they are not two separate willings, such that you would even posit a causal relationship between them. Rather they are God's one will concerned with two different points of reference.