"Let's go back through 2000 years of Christian history. If the men and women who loved and cherished the Scriptures, and had a high view of Scriptures, are all in agreement with regard to a certain doctrine, and they don't agree with you, then who's probably wrong?" —Paul Washer
As godly as Paul Washer may be, and as much as I may respect him, this is a logical fallacy. Just because a majority of individuals held to a specific view does not mean that the view they held to was in any way, shape, or form true. Otherwise, we should all still be adhering to the Catholic beliefs. Yes, that last sentence would also be a logical fallacy if someone actually believed that to be the case, because Catholic beliefs developed well after the early Congregation. Again, just because a majority of people hold to something, or that a particular view was held for a certain period of time, does not mean it is correct.
According to Mr. Washer's argument, then who do we rely on? The Presbyterians? The Baptists? The Anglicans? The Reformed? The Lutherans? Or how about the Catholics? Since all these groups have majorities in agreement, and have held to certain beliefs for centuries, does that honestly mean that we are wrong when it comes to a particular belief? If that is the case, then all the other groups mentioned must be wrong since "the majority" before them held to the Catholic beliefs.
To give a clear example where Mr. Washer's thinking is completely in error, look to the historical interpretation of Romans 7:14-25. If you look in most commentaries, you will see that they hold to the traditional interpretation. However, this interpretation is false. First, it ignores the context. They deliberately leave off verse 13, which is key because Paul asks a specific rhetorical question wherein he proceeds to give his answer (just as he did his three previous rhetorical questions). It even ignores the context of verses 4 through 12. This is key in understanding the meaning of 13 through 25. Second, it ignores what comes before and what comes after. Compare 14-25 with what is stated in chapter 6 and chapter 8. This interpretation is completely contradictory to the statements of these two chapters; not to mention everything else in the New Testament. Third, it ignores the words used and the meanings of those words, all of which are not true of a Christian. The historical interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 has been experiential rather than exegetical.
If you perform your study thoroughly and honestly, and all the commentators disagree with you, you may be wrong, but not necessarily; you may actually be right. If they all disagree with your conclusion, double check your work. If you are absolutely sure you have been a good Berean applying 2 Timothy 2:15, then you might have discovered an error in thinking that has been carried on for centuries. Sometimes, when people discover errors, their thinking is to acquiesce to the "great" men before them, putting them on a pedestal they do not belong on. We are only human, and even the "greats" can, and have, committed errors. Let the Spirit of the living God be your guide without falsely attributing your own desires and opinions to His leading.