The Book of Concord contains documents which Christians from the fourth to the 16th century A.D. explained what they believed and taught on the basis of the Holy Scriptures
The ELCA holds the Book of Concord as a historical document.
The LCMS holds that the Book of Concerd is an accurate interpretation and faithful to the Bible. For Sola Scriptura to be tenable, there must be a standard. The Catholic Church holds that the Church itself is the standard. The LCMS believes that the Book of Concord is the standard.
To be a member of an LCMS Church, one must believe that Bible is the inspired word of God. To be a pastor on an LCMS Church, one must believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and believe that the Book of Concord is an accurate interpretation of the Bible.
The LCMS does not believe that the Book of Concord is equal to the Bible, just that it is faithful.
To be a member of an LCMS Church, one must believe that Bible is the inspired word of God. To be a pastor on an LCMS Church, one must believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and believe that the Book of Concord is an accurate interpretation of the Bible.
The Catholic Church also holds that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The difference is that the Catholic Church recognizes oral tradition.
Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves. It is not the same as the man-made traditions condemned in Scripture. The man-made traditions condemned in Scripture were those of the Jewish Pharisees. In fact, as Christians, we are supposed to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)? St. Paul must have "heard" this saying, not read it from any Gospel or Scripture, thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in his epistle.
The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17). What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."