“”Reformers hold that God does not will all people to be saved to the extent that He will cause it to happen, which causing is fully within His power.””
The Reformers are wrong because God would have two wills -one that wills bad and the other that wills good. Also God would be moved from being all things good
From Aquinas
That God is the Good of all Good
GOD in His goodness includes all goodnesses, and thus is the good of all good.
2. God is good by essence: all other beings by participation: therefore nothing can be called good except inasmuch as it bears some likeness to the divine goodness. He is therefore the good of all good. Hence it is said of the Divine Wisdom: There came to me all good things along with it (Wisd. vii, 11).
And
That the Will of God is His Essence
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_73.htm
GOD has will inasmuch as He has understanding. But He has under- standing by His essence (Chap. XLIV, XLV), and therefore will in like manner.
2. The act of will is the perfection of the agent willing. But the divine being is of itself most perfect, and admits of no superadded perfection (Chap. XXIII): therefore in God the act of His willing is the act of His being.
3. As every agent acts inasmuch as it is in actuality, God, being pure actuality, must act by His essence. But to will is an act of God: therefore God must will by His essence.
4. If will were anything superadded to the divine substance, that substance being complete in being, it would follow that will was something adventitious to it as an accident to a subject; also that the divine substance stood to the divine will as potentiality to actuality; and that there was composition in God: all of which positions have been rejected (Chap. XVI, XVIII, XXIII).*
That God cannot will Evil
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_95.htm
EVERY act of God is an act of virtue, since His virtue is His essence (Chap. XCII).
2. The will cannot will evil except by some error coming to be in the reason, at least in the matter of the particular choice there and then made. For as the object of the will is good, apprehended as such, the will cannot tend to evil unless evil be somehow proposed to it as good; and that cannot be without error.* But in the divine cognition there can be no error (Chap. LXI). 3. God is the sovereign good, admitting no intermixture of evil (Chap. LXI). 4. Evil cannot befall the will except by its being turned away from its end. But the divine will cannot be turned away from its end, being unable to will except by willing itself (Chap. LXXV). It cannot therefore will evil; and thus free will in it is naturally established in good. This is the meaning of the texts: God is faithful and without iniquity (Deut. xxxii, 4); Thine eyes are clean, O Lord, and thou canst not look upon iniquity (Hab. i, 13).
The Reformers are wrong because God would have two wills -one that wills bad and the other that wills good. Also God would be moved from being all things good
There would be no requirement for God to have two wills here. I would agree with you and Aquinas that all God wills is good. It's just that part of what God wills is that not everyone He creates is going to be in Heaven. Maybe it's natural for us humans to think that sounds bad, but it isn't, by definition, because it's from God.
I think most people would agree with me that at least some of the actions God took in the OT sounded pretty harsh under the circumstances. For example, the poor guy who got zapped for only trying to prop up the ark as it was falling. That sounds kinda mean, doesn't it? But do we say that God wished and did a "bad" thing? Of course not. We are the ones who have to adjust our mindsets to trying to understand it as a good. Likewise, I think it is the same with God not wanting all to be in Heaven with Him to the point of making it happen. Somehow, that is actually good.
...... 2. The will cannot will evil except by some error coming to be in the reason, at least in the matter of the particular choice there and then made. ......
I think I agree with all of this from Aquinas and it seems consistent with Reformed theology (even if also in agreement with Latin theology) as far as I can tell.