As to the OP,
Sola scriptura - No. I Tim 3:15 says the *church* is the pillar of truth. Interpreting the scriptures is not easy (2 Peter 3:16) and that's where the church comes in (well, it does more than that). If reading the scriptures were so easy, there wouldn't be thousands of Protestant denominations. Jarrod is right in that every piece of writing has context, including historical context,which usually is important to understanding a text. No one bought into sola scriptura for a thousand years. What changed? The Protestants needed a reason to break with a 1500 year old church. Oh, and Protestant founders didn't really believe sola scriptura anyway. Epistle of straw? - not the way to treat a holy book.
Secondly, where does it say in scripture to look at the NT as the only authority for the truth. (Hint: it doesn't). Wouldn't had Jesus said something about it in his ministry?
As a former Protestant (and Catholic), I thought that scripture was the way to get back to the original church. In fact, Protestants have a framework for reading the Bible as the rest of us do. Moreover, their interpretation of Scripture ignores important parts in favor of others. Luther himself said his theology is based on the Book of Romans. Then, why have the other books of the New Testament?
The final problem with sola scriptura is it leaves out the working of God at any time after the NT times. Yes, Scripture is useful to reject certain beliefs, but if we can't trust anything written after that time, God seems quite limited to me. The Ecumenical Councils (yes, I am an Orthodox Christian) dealt with issues of the day with authority. All Protestants can do today is argue about these things without conclusion.
Sole fide - No. Have you read the Epistle of James? It pretty much refutes that one. As evidence, I once again cite Luther who rather than deal with the issue of works simply "ripped [James] out of [his] Bible."
The other solas look good to me.