I have no desire to be a stick in the mud but I do not think any compelling argument can be made from what the early church believed about anything.
It is certainly interesting and certainly worthy of consideration, but it seems to me that Jesus no sooner disappears and power struggles, legalism and Gnosticism are already worming their way into the message as we see in the book of Acts and the letters of Paul. After 70 AD, Semitic perspective is eschewed and the church begins a tailspin deep into Greek philosophy. Once the original Apostles are dead there are no brakes to that trend and the church body as a whole redefines every New Testament word in terms of its Greek back story while adding an overstated drama inventing ecclesiastical meaning instead of seeing the biblical text in its actual historical context. I am not saying they did this out of deliberate intent to distort but simply out of an uneducated assumption that these words precipitated from a Jewish sect must obviously mean what they mean "to me." And thus was invented the tradition of unscholarly study of Greek where it is studied with rigid grammar and no research into linguistic significance except when confused. This trend continues to this very day. It will be hard to change it because it would require a great number of esteemed leaders to admit they were wrong.
We did not suddenly find ourselves victims of the heresies of Augustine of Hippo. He merely sealed the deal once and for all and the church has ever since been a cult of hidden anti-Semitic attitudes married to Greek Philosophy involved in horrific power struggles to reestablish absurd concepts or substitutes for apostolic authority. It is Augustine's false teachings that forever plunged the church into a required organizational structure as that remained the only way to sustain his paradigm. And yet it violates every principle Jesus and Paul taught about the nature of the relationship Christ has with the individual.
The Roman Catholic monolith could not establish its power grip until after Augustine. The so called Protestant reformers were themselves grasping for power. I can empathize as they required some sort of power to counter the Roman church. So as they saw it, they had no choice but to go no farther back than Augustine. In a sense Protestantism simply went back to the same poisoned root and became a different kind of Catholicism.
Back to my opening statement - I think the only arguments we can make are those that consider the possibilities and rely upon the potential for coherence when as many factors as possible are wrestled with.