No Lutheran symbol prior to the Formula of Concord addressed the doctrine of predestination. No debate was raging in Lutheran circles concerning predestination in the 1570s, and therefore no formative Lutheran treatment of this doctrine substantially added to what Luther and Melanchthon had stated. What need was there for Lutheran symbolism to take up the matter so late in the sixteenth century?
The writers of the Formula of Concord did not offer a discussion on predestination without good reason. First, the ambiguities of Melanchthon regarding synergism were carried one step further by John Pfeffinger, who taught that God elected persons to eternal salvation upon a sinner’s believing in Christ. This position differed markedly from that of Luther’s good friend, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, who held an absolute predestination. The increasingly divergent approaches to predestination within Lutheranism was begging for a synthesizing or symbolic statemen ton the subject.
Second, Flacius and the Gnesio-Lutherans increasingly drew their verbal swords against Strigel, Pfeffinger, and numerous Philippists on the doctrine of the bondage of the will and original sin. This led to Articles 1 and 2 of the Formula of Concord and necessitated a special article on predestination, for these three doctrines are inseparably related.
Finally, this article was necessary due to the rise of Calvinism and the increasing attention Calvinist theologians gave to predestination. Almost unwillingly, Lutheranism had to elaborate its position on predestination or else risk numerous aberrations within her own ranks; consequently, the future unity of Lutheranism demanded it. Calvin’s views, widely known and discussed, had been published in the Consensus Genevensis of 1552. Theodore Beza defended the views of his Genevan predecessor and carried them forward in his explicit supralapsarianism. Both the Belgic and Gallic Confessions clearly expressed a Calvinistic approach to predestination. Zanchi, Peter Martyr, and others as well, had engaged in strong controversies with Lutherans. . . .
In sum, the Formula teaches the following:
1) Predestination is the cause of salvation of the elect but not the cause of damnation of the reprobate (Epitome XI.5; SD XI.8), for ordaining must be distinguished from foreknowing (Epitome XI.2; SD XI.4).
2) Predestination’s relevance does not lie in human reason’s probing of God’s hidden counsel, but in faith’s searching of the revealed will of God in His Word to be found in Christ (Epitome XI.66, 9, 13; SD XI.9, 13, 26, 36, 43, 52, 65, 68) and embraced in His promises (SD XI.28).
3) Predestination will then become a most precious, comforting doctrine which embraces the entire saving work of God, confirms justification by grace, assures of salvation, strengthens in most intense afflictions, and admonishes to repentance (Epitome XI.1, 11, 13; SD XI.12, 15, 28, 43, 41, 71).
4) Though the cause of election does not lie in the believer, but in God’s gracious will and Christ’s merit, so that all of salvation declares free grace (Epitome XI.5; SD XI.61, 75, 88), the cause of non-election (damnation) does not lie in God whatsoever, but in man and in his sins, particularly his scorning of God’s Word and his refusal to believe in God’s Christ and God’s promises in Christ, not withstanding the Spirit’s earnest attempts to invite and draw the sinner to the sweet pastures of salvation’s living and written Word (Epitome XI.5, 12; SD XI.34, 35, 40, 61, 78, 80).
Article 11, though often neglected, actually forms the crowning summary of the Formula of Concord: God’s universal decree of salvation overcomes the consequences of original sin (Art. 1), but does not abolish the relative freedom which constitutes man’s humanity (Art. 2). Based upon Christ’s merit, this saving will of God effects both justification and sanctification (Arts. 3-6). Among the means of grace by which this will of salvation is actualized in history, the Lord’s Supper — being the center of numerous controversies — is singled out for special discussion (Art. 7), and in close connection, the mysteries surrounding Christ’s person (Art. 8) and work (Art. 9) are dealt with. According to the devout Lutheran this is orthodoxy at its best; indeed, Article 11, though placed inconspicuously, played a strategic role in laying the foundations upon which Lutheran orthodoxy was erected.
Joel R. Beeke, Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination: Early Lutheran Predestination, Calvinian Reprobation, and Variations in Genevan Lapsarianism, 47-48, 53-54.