This is perhaps the finest post that I have ever seen from you on FR. May I congratulate you? It is extensive, well reasoned, and logical in itself.
Your entire point, though, rests on John 6:44 as a stand-alone proposition. It is not. The Catholic viewpoint, from the time of Jesus, has accepted the notion of 'and'. Remember that the message, initially for the Jews, then started to go out to the Gentiles as well. One argument is that the whole notion of 'adopting in' was to provide a logical pathway for Gentiles to be saved by the God of the Jews, without becoming Jewish themselves.
However, we have John 6:44: no man is saved without being drawn by God. Fact and clear. We also have John 12:32: But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
We have the mathematical operator 'and'. John 6:44 is true. John 12:32 is true. All means all. All men means all men. But drawn is obviously not predestined, since men have the ability to deny God. Peter denied Jesus in the flesh; Adam denied God in the Garden. Shameful as it may be, that is the lot of men in life - to accept or to deny God. It is God that is faithful to man, sadly, the reverse is often untrue.
Death by a thousand compliments. Too kind...literally.
First, the post does not turn on John 6:44. The post turns on several passages that speak to predestination, and the companion foreknowledge. But, let us focus on this claim that John 12:32 addresses the same thing that Jesus was speaking of in John 6.
Notice, in John 6:44 Jesus specifically promises that the "drawn" (whoever that may be) will be raised up on the last day. Now, unless you are a universalist (some Catholics I have met are), Jesus was discriminating between those he would absolutely rescue, if they were drawn, and everyone else. If you are correct that all individuals are drawn, then all individuals will be resurrected. Talk about a "hard" predestination...this is hard universalism, a bigger heresy than indulgences.
But, the argument Jesus is making continues in John 6:65 as He was describing some individuals who believed and some that didn't believe and would betray Him. And, He knew who was who. How could he know ahead of the choice? Because, as He said, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father." There is no question He is specifically calling attention to THE reason the betrayer did not believe: It had not been given to him, "For this reason..."
Identifying Judas as not being given something others were given was not a "guess" or "probability". Notice, it was not ultimately because Judas didn't believe that he came to betray Jesus. It was because he was not "given" faith to apprehend, "This is the Messiah." He betrayed because he didn't believe and didn't believe because it was not given him. Judas did exactly what Jesus said He would do and could not have done otherwise. This is abundantly clear from the text.
Your entire point rests on the word "all" in John 12, meaning "every individual". However, the word in John 6:44 is "oudeis", "no one" or "not one" individually while the word in John 12:32 is "pantas", or simply "all" (accusative, plural, masculine) without reference to whether it means all individuals, all men, all mankind, all nations or whatever. Please don't call in your buddy with a fourth grade Greek education, I won't address his gross mistatements and inaccuracies.
We argue that since we now know from John 6:65 that Jesus could not be speaking of "every individual" (unless you believe Judas was the only guy in history to be left out), then He must be addressing "all nationalities" whether Dutch or Yurok Indian or Jewish. And that has, without question, occurred. He has drawn the world to Himself...just NOT every individual man in the world.
Beware of demanding words mean the same thing everywhere, without context. This comes from a deficient hermenuetic. "I woke up this morning, got up and dressed up. I ran up to the store and picked up some groceriecs. The clerk added the cost up and when I got home, I cooked up some breakfast. I ate it all up." Define "up". Words are controlled by the context and the arguments occurring in proximity.
But, you have ignored the wider argument of my post. Does God know what will happen tomorrow or not? If He does, and that knowledge is inerrant, absolute and fixed, then what could happen other than what He already knows? Could another outcome occur? If not, then everything is simply tracking along a predetermined path, including men's destinies. Including the moment of Jesus death (Acts 2:23). In truth, God's foreknowledge is just a result of God's massive control over the universe. Are we to "choose" Him...certainly, but is that choice unaffected, unguided, unknown by God until we choose? If so, then Paul's letter to the Romans is wrong "For whom He foreknew, He predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son...And whom He predestined, these He also called, and whom He called He also justified, and whom He justified these He also glorified." The golden chain.
But, if God's foreknowledge is not perfect (at best a good guess) then the future is unfolding for God just as it is for you and I. He has no idea what the stock market will do today, since it is comprised of billions of individual "free will" choices. Since He doesn't affect (or rather "effect") them, then He sits and waits until the close. Is this really the God described in the Bible? I submit that if one holds to a God waiting for his creatures to act, that man worships a caraciture of a really smart human. Blasphemy.
Rather, the Scripture indicates His knowledge is perfect because He manages to accomplish all that occurs, Is. 45:6, 7, "That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no other besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity (literally "evil"); I am the Lord who does all these." I can find dozens of passages like this. Sorry Mark...He wins.