The answer is, short of divine intervention, no, they cannot be saved from their chosen life of chaos. Some perspectives so alter a person that a return to the pre-altered state is implausible. Once holding truth in unrighteousness becomes normative, the internal contradiction itself and the chaos that results from this contradiction makes a return to holding the truth in righteousness an absurdity and therefore impossible. The noetic contradictory paradigm repulses from the notion of “being saved” arguing, “being saved from what? There is no need to be saved from what is normal.” For the intuitively contradictory mind there is nothing to be saved from. Indeed, only contradictory paths are valid.
For instance, if someone were to assert that there is only one authoritative English version of Scripture, this claim, because it does not accept contradictions as valid, is ridiculed, demonized, and considered untenable. Indeed, beyond these pejoratives, such exclusivity is not normal. No categories exist in the intuitively contradictory noetic equipment to consider the evidence in this exclusionary manner. No grounds, therefore, exist for exploration of the exclusivity. The single authoritative version of the Bible and the intuitively contradictory mindset have absolutely no common ground from which to begin a dialogue.
Another reason for this communicative bifurcation is that the notion of “exclusivity,” “single,” or “exclusionary” smacks of some expression of control, an idea chaos rebels against. Chaos will not submit to speech about control, let alone control itself. Chaos will also not admit of correction that seeks alignment. So, before an actual issue is presented, the exclusive, aligning nature of the issue is rejected based on the trajectory of the issue’s description. “Exclusivity” is not contradictory, its aligning trajectory is not contradictory, and therefore, the issue is invalid and subsequently demonized.
In two wholly separated kinds of people and streams of thought, contradictory and non-contradictory, is resolution between the two possible? As stated earlier, the answer is a certain, no. Neither frame of thought will relinquish what they intuitively grasp as normal, nor can they. However, between the contradictory and non-contradictory believers are on a personal, theological pilgrimage to discover what kind of people they will be. While on this pilgrimage, much like Bunyan’s allegory, “Pilgrim’s Progress,” Christian’s road to the Celestial City is rife with ruinous deviations. Christian also meets companions and resources that aid him on his travels. Pilgrim travels a single road. Detours were never to be taken. Detours would not take Christian to his appointed destination. So, for the undecided pilgrim who is walking the road to the Celestial City, one question remains, “Will you remain on the single, exclusive, exclusionary path to the Celestial City as Christian did, or, will you choose rather to travel the road of intuitive contradiction, rejecting the exclusivity of the single path you first, and have so far, ventured upon?”
Standard Sacred Text.com 