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.
How are you doing, anyway?
To be honest, I didn't read the article past the "RC's think you can buy your way out of hell." Nothing good gonna come after that crappy start. However, I do enjoy the discussion in posts like these and usually I learn something. And I'm not sure I'm ever in the appropriate environment for such careful discourse as my neurons do not always correctly fire. I appreciate your comment and the tenor of your post as well. Kaire.