It's actually both, FK, taken in context, of course.
+Paul preaches sola fide because it is the very minimum required. The Protestant error is that it claims faith to be all that is required.
In the historical context, +Paul expected the end of times to come at any moment, and faith was a must in order for the coverts to be baptized. Under such urgency, works of faith simply had a secondary meaning to him.
In light of the above, may I ask what exactly you believe the Protestant term "Sola Fide" means? If your below is the interpretation, then I do not think it means what you think it means. :)
In the historical context, +Paul expected the end of times to come at any moment, and faith was a must in order for the coverts to be baptized. Under such urgency, works of faith simply had a secondary meaning to him.
Paul was correct, the end of times may come at any moment. But, I expect you mean that Paul thought that the end times were imminent to his time. I don't agree with that, but for the sake of argument, let's say that is correct. In that case, if Paul thought it was imminent, then why does he say NOTHING of specifically baptizing infants before it's too late? Converts could convert using their own free wills, so the argument goes, i.e., it was on them. Infants were completely helpless and innocent, their salvations were completely out of their hands. Why then, does Paul not scream from the mountain tops "Baptize your infants to save their souls while there's still time!!!"? I know the answer. :)
Paul knew that several of the fledgling churches weren't fully with the program yet, so the standard answer of "well everyone already knew to do that so it wasn't necessary to say in the Bible" doesn't work. Time was of the essence, yet he was silent.