I think the point you are missing is how God differentiated between His inerrant word and the many, many other errant, inspired and not so inspired works being circulated at the time.
Although a recognized Church Father, Origen himself was never declared inerrant or a saint. In fact, there were a number of areas in which he was at odds with the Orthodoxy of the Church and well into heresy.
There were a lot of other documents with claims to Scripture that were ultimately rejected from Scripture. Among these were the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (the work of an actual Apostle), the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Andrew (which is mentioned by Pope Innocent I and St. Augustine) and the Epistle of Barnabas, who is actually mentioned in Acts. Additionally, there were a number of books that many of the time discounted and wanted left out. Not the least of these was the Book of Revelation.
So the issue is that without the Episcopacy (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church, through its councils, there would not be a concise, defined Bible today.
Origen, and Clement were kind of squishey, wobbly, almost gnostic turkeys, but they did gather lots of manuscripts in the persuit of trying to support their gnostic leanings.