[The numbers refer to those in the Critique and ultimately to those in the FIEC "Basis of Faith.]

1. It depends on what you mean by intended. I don’t think that when Genesis says “that God saw all that he had made a behold it was very good” - that The Lord was somehow winking because he knew it wasn’t good. It seems from the text that evil appears out of nowhere, and I also (personally) hold the position that we witness satan’s fall as much as we see Adam and Eve’s act of disobedience.

His original plan as far as I can see it revealed in scripture was that Adam and Eve in their state of innocence had they lived obediently would have brought blessing to the whole world. It was the first covenant of works in that sense. And Jesus the second Adam obeys where Adam failed and wins righteousness for those united to him - essentially Paul unpacks this theology in Romans 5.

That being said, the Bible equally teaches that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world and that nothing comes to pass that hasn’t been ordained.  (Eph 1, Romans 9-11). To say otherwise makes God somehow dependent on his creatures, which seems to be a theological step not in keeping with the bible’s description of who the Lord is (Ex 3, Isaiah 6, etc)

I’m happy sitting in the unknown of God’s divine decree - I think the BIble teaches clearly that humanity is responsible, God is sovereign.

2. I agree if we’re talking about the copies, but the doctrine of scripture that the Church has held to throughout the centuries, and that which it itself teaches is that God’s words can be trusted.

Our BD is clear that we are talking about the original autographs and not the copies. So as originally given is the key phrase here. I agree in the copies there are errors, which are clearly marked in our English translations. That said none of those errors substantially change the key doctrines of the text and the work of some of my friends at Tyndale house would argue that the closer we look and the more information we have it seems we can be pretty certain, what we have in the Bible is 99.9% close to what was written.
However that aside, our statement is referencing the original autograph.

Similarly to say say that we can’t trust what God has revealed in scripture doesn’t leave you in a very good place as one then has to appeal to another authority. Jesus seemed happy to quote the OT as authoritative for his own teaching and similarly gave the Apostles authority to pass on his words, so I’m happy what we have in the Bible is enough for us to know God, and all he has accomplished through Christ, and to call people to submit to those words with humility. It’s what we focus on teaching the Bible Sunday by Sunday.

3. I’m sorry vid, but I find what you have written here, to not be very clear at all. That statement  is a description of what the Bible in summary teaches about the dignity and worth of human beings and our need for redemption through Christ. It’s not a complete summary of a doctrine of humanity.
I agree we are called to fulfill the great commission, however that has been significantly hindered by the fall. So while we can develop the world’s resources and humanity does to remarkable effect - it is still full of thorns and thistles.  but one day through Christ we’ll be redeemed to a new state of perfection and able to fulfill our mandate perfectly.

4A. I think the bible teaches very clearly that Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus, and that Joseph clearly recognised that he was not Jesus’ biological Father. To say otherwise leads into all sorts of ancient heresies, but if you want a good defense of my position then Athanasius on the INcarnation would be a good place to start.

If you can show me that the Bible doesn’t teach the Virgin birth - I’d happily listen to you - but normally those that oppose such a position don’t so on the grounds of scripture but because of previous underlying presuppositions, that rule it out.

4B. I think a robust understanding of the doctrine of the trinity normally rules out those who find penal substitution morally absurd. Jesus is not a third party, but the eternal Son of the Father. So in a sense God himself, gave himself, to save us from himself.

The weight of scripture is against you on this point. From Genesis 22, Exodus 12, the laws around the day of atonement, Isaiah 53,  Jesus’own words about his death, Romans 3, to revelation 5, and the eternal song to the lamb who was slain.

You’d have to show me from the scriptures why you think Jesus died and rose again if it wasn’t substitutionary? If death is the wages of sin, why did Jesus have to receive that wage?

7. Ok - can you show me from the scriptures why they have been moved from church practice? Given they are the signs of the new covenant (John 13-16, Romans 5-6, 1 Corinthians 11) what reason do you have for them ceasing today?

9. Ok, but can you show me from the scriptures what you think eternal punishment means if that’s not what it means?