Read a great deal of it. The narrative presented does not support the conclusion drawn. The author admits as much when he says that it is simply a tenet of faith that one believes in the overarching providence of God as ratifying the canon. That's fine, but it's like
Q: Why is the sky blue?
A. Because God made it that way.
That's true as far as it goes. But, we can go farther, using the reason endowed minds give us by God.
The Church Fathers who defended orthodoxy and refuted heresy always found orthodoxy in what had always been believed by those to whom the were joined. One and only one quote from Gregory of Nyssa in his refutation of Eunomius, who persisted in the Arian heresy
I may be counted among the least of those who are enlisted in the Church of God, but still I am not too weak to stand out as her champion against one who has broken with that Church. The very smallest member of a vigorous body would, by virtue of the unity of its life with the whole, be found stronger than one that had been cut away and was dying, however large the latter and small the former.
Though I have not read Eunomius, I would not be surprised to find out that he claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit and that he also was in concert with the mind of the church.
But, 1600 years later, it is St Gregory and his teaching which is held as orthodox - and that consciously by the Orthodox and Catholic traditions. The way Protestants handle the Fathers is always a mystery to me.
I realize that I wandered off the specific topic of the canon of scripture. Suffice it to say, the very same Church of God to which Gregory was joined, would have seen the absolute necessity of defining what it was and what it was not.
Yes, we can, and they did, at the link provided regardless of your own rhetorical dismissal, of your own truncated description of the ending "conclusion."
Did you miss the "in case you missed it" at 166?
Those highlights (but better, the fuller, but still few pages of narrative) point towards the why, concerning what was later established to be acceptable (as NT canon), and what was not, in brief synopsis.
It's very simple, and along the lines of showing by rationality, why the blue color we percieve as color of sky arrives to us as it does.
Now just what was this thing concerning some portion of the book of Acts? Was there some grounds for quibbling there? Something to show the neccassity of churchmen of old, doing as they did? All fine and well, but that doesn't mean it would always stay that way, once focus upon what was handed down in written form --- from the Apostles --- is departed from. That much was proven in putting down early heresies, disrgarding later arriving gnostic writings on the one hand, or truncated presentations limiting the gospels to the book of Luke, on the other, for what did those same churchmen whom prevailed rely upon, but the full written body (of texts) as best as could be assembled.