What might dog the Lutheran position though is the rather significant biblical pattern of brothers elected and rejected. Consistently throughout the Bible we have the story of one older figure/brother being rejected (Ishmael, Esau, Saul, etc.) and the younger person/brother (Isaac, Jacob, David, etc.) accepted. Paul uses this to explain why the Jews are for the time being not converted in the NT. Being the "older brothers" of the Gentiles, Paul argues in Roman 9-11, they are being hardened for the time being, so that the "younger brother" of the Gentiles might be brought in.
Calvinist use this and with some rhetorical merit to say "hey, look, God does reject some and accept others." But let's look closer. My suggestion will be that this pattern will actually vindicate the paradoxical Lutheran view.
First, let's ask the question, why is it the case that one was rejected and the other accepted? God fairly consistently elects the weak and rejected, as we discover time and again in Scripture. If inheritance in pre-modern cultures always went to the older brother, God would doubtless choose the disinherited in order to make his power known. Hence, the choice of Jacob over Esau, etc. So the pattern goes, the disinherited are become the inherited, the mighty are knocked down from their thrones, etc.
If that's the case though, what happens to the disinherited? Think about it. If the inherited become the disinherited, then won't they take the same position as the person who they had been passed over for? In other words, Esau and Ishmael now take the position occupied by Isaac and Jacob as a disinherited one and consequently an object of God's grace. Paul uses the same argument in Romans: The Jews are being disinherited right now for the sake of the Gentiles. Nevertheless, being disinherited places them in the position of being God's object of grace in that he elects those who are disinherited.
Consequently, the Lutheran view is vindicated by this pattern of doublets. What Calvinists don't get is that being rejected automatically makes you an object of divine grace. Therefore the idea of elect and universal grace are paradoxical, but fit perfectly with the biblical pattern.
Conversely, what does being elected make one? Well, it means that you return to God's creation and bear the cross in your vocation. So, much like being rejected automatically makes the person an object of grace, so being elected means that you participate in a world suffering under God's wrath. It means to accept the lot of the disinherited as your own.
Jesus of course exemplifies this. He is the "first born over all creation" so that he is rejected along with Esau and Ishmael, but he is also the "second Adam" (Adam's younger brother), consequently he is also accepted. He is of the tribe of Judah (accepted and returned from Exile), but he also lived in the Northern Kingdom (rejected and never heard from again). He therefore recapitulates the whole pattern in himself and makes our rejection into a final universal acceptance.
At the last judgment, that some remain rejected enemies of God is therefore mysterious. God of course does not elect all. God executes his decree of election in the event of coming to faith, while making clear in the means of grace that all are sinful and rejected and therefore all objects of his grace. To be an object of God's grace therefore does not mean to have had the decree of election executed upon one. There finally is a division. Nevertheless, since we know the rejected are always objects of divine grace, we cannot claim that the Calvinists are correct that God does to offer is grace to all or that all are not objects of his grace. The biblical pattern of election demands this.