[hopefulpilgrim]

At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles.

Too bad about what happened "subsequently."

Finally with regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium, or teaching authority.

"An official organ" by whose standards? The catholic church's, right? They look to flesh for their teaching rather than God. To them, the revelation of God is found in the wisdom of man. They have no concept of Spiritual instruction as taught to us in 1 Cor. 2.
-- Hopefulpilgrim

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. " 2:14

[RobbyS]

It says: ... a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles.

. They look to flesh for their teaching rather than God. To them, the revelation of God is found in the wisdom of man.

Our claim is that there are some doctrines which have as their source the oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles rather than the Scriptures. You claim that these don't exist. Your logic reduces to this syllogism:

All Christian doctrine is contained in the Bible

Doctrine "x" is not contained in the Bible

Therefore, Doctrine"X" is not Christian.

My objection is that your major premise is not contained in the Bible.