Are you saying that the Church chose what books are in the Canon? They had that kind of power? To decide what God said? Or did they maybe accept what God had given to them as Scripture? You might think I'm splitting hairs. I do not think so.
There were lots of competing texts floating around at the time of the early Church. It was the Church, through the authority of the successors of the apostles, who determined which books contained the authentic apostolic teaching. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Thomas are not included in the canon of scripture because the Church decided it shouldn't be included. As Christ says in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit led the apostles and their successors into all truth.
Allow me to quote the following (from a non-Catholic source, btw):
Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). The Third Council of Carthage was not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine. The English text below is from Metzger.
Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon, the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra, and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.
There are writings pointing to a synod at Hippo in 393 that made the first pronouncement of the canon, but I haven't been able to find the actual quote.
In answer to your specific questions:
History shows that it was a more gradual process than anything. But, face it, there were PLENTY of texts floating about in those days. Some of them might be genuine writings that were canonical, some of them might be authentic writings that were not canonical, some might be pseudographs. This Canon 24, quoted above, was more of an affirmation.
Well, not in of themselves...but we believe that the Holy Ghost worked through them.
Without such a list, how would we know that the Gospel of Thomas was not an inspired work? The Gnostics around today would have you believe it was...
I think you're closer here. You should remember that, particularly with the "New Testament" writings, there wasn't an organized "New Testament" prior to Jerome compiling the Vulgate in 382 AD. Originally, there were individual writings: e.g., St. Paul sent a letter to a church and that letter was circulated back and forth between churches. For example, the four gospels that we are familiar with were determined to be canoncial during the 2nd century (as documented by Iraneus)
But the fact remains that the writings were originally written as separate works and that those works were gradually accepted as inspired over a period of little more than 300 years. By whom? By the Catholic Church. And, in 393, they codified the list into what is known as the Canon. Again who? The Catholic Church.
I think maybe you're not splitting them enough.
Take the words "To decide what God said?" That's a highly equivocal use of language. Parliament decides what the Queen says, in the sense that she has to say what they tell her to say. In some situations, say in reading a transcript of an intercepted call or bugged conversation, one might have to "decide what someone said". But this could mean deciding WHO (which of several people who might have been speaking) said a particular bunch o' words. Or it could mean more, We know that is was so-and-so speaking but we're analyzing the tape to decide just what exactly she said.
And then there's the case where we know what someone said (If you attack Persia, a great empire will be destroyed) but we're not sure what he meant by it. (It turned out that it meant that Croesus's empire would be destroyed, by the Persians!)
To "accept what God had given to them as Scripture", those who "closed the canon" had to recognize that God gave 'em this document, but maybe not that document, The Acts of the Apostles, but not The Acts of Pilate. In that sense they are deciding what God said.... SOME of what God said, that is.
With such a niceness of distinction required, a thread which begins with the suggestion that RC's think you can buy your way out of Hell is not likely to provide the nurturing environment necessary for such careful discourse.