Not really.
1. I quoted from Ambrose’s 1:23 — are you referring to the same book?
2. 1 Cor 2 is not about personal interpretation but about belief
2.2 - It talks clearly about our beliefs, not about interpreting differently from what Christ taught His apostles and was handed down from them
To use that to allow for sola scriptura is nonsensical.
To use that for saying personal interpretation (a separate topic from sola scriptura) doesn’t meet what the letter to the Corinthians says at all
I specifically looked at what you quoted. I didn't go out finding some other early church father quote (today, not talking about posts in prior days).
2. 1 Cor 2 is not about personal interpretation but about belief
The only reason I explored interpreting 1 Cor 2 as possibly being about wisdom available to everyone (as you put it, "personal interpretation") is because of a reverence to exegetical interpretation. It means to interpret the Bible without bias.
So I was trying to read 1 Cor 2 (don't blame me for going to 1 Cor 2, you quoted it first LOL) not as a Protestant, nor a Catholic, nor a 21st century American, but from what Paul meant. In political lingo, call it an "originalist" interpretation. One way to do that is to look at all the possibilities it could mean (I listed 3) and see which one(s) is the most plausible. Bonus points if when analyzing those verses I look for interpretation based on more of the 1st Corinthians text itself (less chance of taking something out of context if I'm comparing 1st Corinthians text to other 1st Corinthians text instead of comparing it to other parts of the Bible).
Next sub-topic, I'm probably misunderstanding one of your statements. You said:
"2.2 - It talks clearly about our beliefs, not about interpreting differently from what Christ taught His apostles and was handed down from them."
To which I say, I agree. The 1 Cor 2 text is NOT saying to interpret differently from Christ's and the apostles' teachings. Christ's and the apostles' teachings should be the see-all do-all. Which makes it sound like you're leaning toward a sola scriptura position. Except that you immediately followed it with:
To use that to allow for sola scriptura is nonsensical.
So clearly I'm having trouble following what you're saying.