My point is simply that if you use a 4th-century-AD or later standard (the Nicea-Constantinople-Chalcedon dogma for instance) for assessing earlier stuff (like Patristic works) as comparatively "right" or "wrong," "wheat" or "chaff" as you put it, there is no logical reason to except 1st- or 2nd-century NT stuff from the same standard and assessment.
The (artificial) difference between Christian "scripture" (or canon) and "tradition" exists in Catholicism and Eastern churches, in a qualitative way, but (Western) Protestantism has developed it into a radical and often antagonistic dichotomy: the former has to be 100 % "right" or "wheat" (0 % "wrong" or "chaff") while the latter is regarded as "just human" and subject to question (pick and choose the wheat that may be found, discard the chaff). This might have been a logical (although artificial, and impractical) ground to develop doctrine exclusively from NT exegesis (sola scriptura),provided the doctrine was effectively the result of free exegesis and not determined otherwise. But by accepting the ecumenical councils in addition to Scripture Protestant orthodoxy entered in a sort of double bind. It henceforth had to interpret NT scripture in a way that agrees with 4th-century dogma no matter the cost. Exegetical violence was bound to follow -- and the resistance of the texts again and again rises the nagging question, "why doesn't the 'inerrant' NT teach 'true dogma' as explicitly as later creeds do?"
Don't take me wrong: I for one am of the opinion that neo-Arianism (like the JW brand) does more violence to the NT texts than Trinitarian orthodoxy does. But both do. The only way for a Trinitarian NT reader to read the NT texts as they are is to accept the possibility that they, just like the pre-Nicene Fathers, may be "wrong" inasmuch as they do not exactly suit the Trinity doctrine. If you do not allow for such a possibility, you are bound to torture the texts until they say what you want to hear.