The orthodox Lutherans believe that original sin is handled in baptism. Hence, as a gospel-word and promise, "baptism doth save." They are very objective and literalistic here.
But, not being committed to systematics as expressing as nearly as possible the coherence of Biblical teaching, they do not place any sort of salvific priority on God's FREE electing decree. And they believe (despite a strong monergistic commitment regarding salvation) that men can fall away utterly, even with their original sin debt wiped out through baptismal regeneration.
So they say, "God does everything to save and to keep, absolutely everything, including giving faith. And still man can fall away. That a hard mystery, but the Bible teaches it (just like we believe it!) and so it must be true." So, they insist on the indispensability of faith, and the gift of faith, and yet they criticize the Reformed (which include us, and a huge basket of unReformed religion) for laying too much emphasis on faith?!? Go figure.
Of course, they also have their own unique harmonization techniques for some things. They do care about avoiding (where possible) apparent and real contradictions. So, they have categories for justification called "objective" and "subjective". And they divide up verses they find on justification according to which each "must" refer to.
We handle our difficulties very often within the context of the covenant and its internal and external administrations. I happen to think ours does a much better job at handling the challenges of systematics, and the category of mystery.
But in the end, the Lutherans seem to get justification right, along with Luther. They get the cross and the necessity of the gospel right. Their doctrine of baptism doesn't seem to overthrow their core and more fundamental commitments. And so, I don't see that any perceived inconsistency on their part pushes them out of a part in the successful Reformation of the Church.