The process of formation of the Biblical canon(s) demonstrably required lots and lots of human intervention, judgement and discernment by the Early Church over the course of several centuries. According to Wikipedia:
With the potential exception of the Septuagint, the apostles did not leave a defined set of scriptures; instead the canon of both the Old Testament and the New Testament developed over time. Different denominations recognize different lists of books as canonical, following various church councils and the decisions of leaders of various churches.
For mainstream Pauline Christianity (growing from proto-orthodox Christianity in pre-Nicene times) which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements, for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was set at the Council of Rome (382).
In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible in order to address changes Martin Luther made in his recently completed German translation which was based on the Hebrew language Tanakh in addition to the original Greek of the component texts. The canons of the Church of England and English Presbyterians were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Various forms of Jewish Christianity persisted until around the fifth century, and canonicalized very different sets of books, including Jewish–Christian gospels which have been lost to history. These and many other works are classified as New Testament apocrypha by Pauline denominations.
The Old and New Testament canons did not develop independently of each other and most primary sources for the canon specify both Old and New Testament books. For the biblical scripture for both Testaments, canonically accepted in major traditions of Christendom, see biblical canon § canons of various traditions.
Despite the obvious high levels of human intervention that were required, the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that some specific Biblical canon is divinely inspired, and that the process that led to its formation is trustworthy.
And yet, almost paradoxically, many of these Christians are also skeptical of the writings of the Apostolic & Ante-Nicene Fathers, even in matters where there is broad agreement (e.g. the deity of Christ, post-mortal consciousness, etc.).
Question: What is the epistemological basis for trusting some specific Biblical canon and, at the same time, being skeptical of the writings of the Apostolic & Ante-Nicene Fathers? How do such Christians know that the process that led to the formation of some specific canon is trustworthy but the writings of the Apostolic & Ante-Nicene Fathers are not, even if there is broad agreement among them?