Christ's death sufficient for all?

[Polanus1561]

You are certainly in good company to interpret that way. In short, I think Hodge's understanding is correct because John's use of "whole world" in these later writings (1 Jn. 5:19, Rev. 3:10, 12:9, 16:14) exclusively and undeniably refers to the unbelieving world. 1 John 2:2 would be an anomaly and very difficult to interpret categorically from an objectively exegetical context.

And yes, I believe John 3:16 speaks to the entire human race-- no need for categories or groups. The immediate context for John 3:16 is Moses lifting up the serpent as Christ was lifted up. Only those who looked upon the bronze serpent were saved (effectual), but it was lifted for all (sufficient) and left those who perished without excuse. In my thinking, it's an important doctrine because it shows that those who reject Christ actually reject the atonement offered in the gospel. The idea that they reject Christ but not the atonement (since it was never for them in any sense) doesn't make much sense to me. It also gives believers confidence that when they offer the gospel they are actually offering something, even if it is ultimately refused. After all, can something be refused that is not actually offered?

2 Thes. 2:9-10: "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

I'm not trying to debate, only share why I think the sufficient/efficient doctrine of the atonement is both biblical and highly practical.

Yes. The bronze serpent verses helps verse 16 understanding.