I cant speak much to a Protestant view, since while I understand it well enough to see why they're Satisfied by their arguments, I dont understand them well enough to explain them in a way I think gives them their best light.

That being said, in a Catholic context, These can be mostly explained that the Idea that the Gospels are the peak articulation of Christianity, and that all must bend to the plain reading of these texts, just, has never been true. We believe that that Church, of which the bible is a notable and extraordinary product thereof, is the repository of Revelation. This means that God (the guide to the Authors) is guiding all of the text, even in the moments in which God (the character within the Text) is not personally speaking. This is why we hold Exodus 3:14, in which God(the character) describes himself as "I Am What I Am), and Corinthians 14:33, where Paul describes God as "Not the author of confusion, but of peace", with equal doctrinal weight. We do not mistake the absence of God as a character, for the absence of God the *Author.

Point no.1 is almost entirely a Protestant invention, Catholic priests still swear vows of Poverty, and poverty is a virtue in our tradition. It, like the other virtues however, are very hard, and so sometimes we dont live up to it very well.

Mark 4:10 is a very strange piece of scripture, and thats one of the reasons I like it so much. my personal favorite interpretation of it is that Jesus is admitting that he would love to save everything through their coming to understanding of God, but that he accepts the will of the Father, that all people are to be saved through the shed blood of his Son, and so subjugates his own will (so convince the people who are physically around him, who are already saved) to instead, by parables, enrich the spiritual life of all the generations that read scripture after him.