What was first, sola scriptura or sola fide?

I just watched a video with an Orthodox professor, in which he said that "Sola Scriptura" came first, and then "Sola Fide". Is that true? The best I can gather from the Wiki articles on these two topics is that both of them came pretty much simultaneously. The [video itself](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1YiItwrOSg&t=602s) is in Russian. Here is my translation of his words (starting at 5:57): > …And all these new ideologues outraged by this so called scholasticism > |of Roman Catholic Church| have declared, “The truth is only what the > Scriptures say. Only the Scriptures and nothing else! Period. Let’s > abandon all these theologians!” This apparently magnificent thesis > made a big impression on many Christians. Because many had already > been racking their brain over some speculations by some |theologians| > like Duns Scotus or Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, their speculations were > just abracadabra and no one really knew what to make of it. > > So, they said, “Only the Scriptures!” Perfect! Who would’ve dared say > anything against that? It really sounded just perfect. > > But what was the outcome of that? |The outcome of that was:| “You > think this way?”, “And you think another way?”, “And you have yet > another opinion?!” So, as a result, the whole Protestantism began to > fall to pieces. Soon it was like peas spilled and scattered all over > the floor. Everyone had his own opinion. > > And where was the criterion for determining who was right and who was > wrong? How was one to know which opinion was correct? Well, it was > already too late |to look for such a criterion|. There were no > authorities anymore. The Fathers were no longer held as the authority. > Each person now considered his own way of thinking and his own > understanding as true. The truth for each person was now his own thoughts > and convictions. And each one would claim now, “That’s how the Holy > Spirit showed me this!” (|Of course, it begs the question,| “How can > it be the Holy Spirit if you are arguing with one another and just > can’t find any common ground in your understanding?!”) They were > really now all scattered like peas on the floor! You see? This is how > sometimes a very attractive thesis, which one would think shouldn’t > cause any disagreement, can |turn out to be false|. > > So what did they finally arrive at? They arrived at another thesis, > which came right after “Sola Scriptura”, and that thesis is > indisputable in Protestantism – the whole Protestantism is standing on > this thesis like on a strongest foundation. This thesis is “We are > being saved only by faith” By what kind of faith? By believing that > Jesus Christ is the Lord, that He has suffered on our behalf, that He > has redeemed us from sin, that we are saved through His sacrifice… So he seems to be claiming here that "Sola Fide" was put forth as a reaction to the many divisions among Protestants caused by "Sola Scriptura". Thus, his chronology is as follows: Sola Scriptura –> divisions –> Sola Fide This contradicts to a story that I heard before about Martin Luther climbing some ladder on his knees in some temple and suddenly recalling, if I remember correctly, Rom 1:17 ("The righteous will live by faith"), which happened even prior to 95 theses. However, I may have gotten this story wrong and my knowledge on Reformation is quite limited, so I don't know.