No, the demons cannot be saved because Jesus died for mankind. When Jesus says to believe on Him, he is talking about having faith in Him to deliver us. It is receiving Him as our Savior and accepting the gift of eternal life God gives to us by His grace.
The "church" is the called-out assembly of ALL those who follow and believe in Jesus Christ, it is a SPIRITUAL house (I Pet. 2:5). No organized church can be THE true church of Jesus Christ because the Body of Christ contains ONLY those who are the redeemed. A true Christian church would follow the teachings Jesus taught both while he was on earth and what he revealed to those who enscripturated both in the Bible. Just as the Old Testament prophets of the Lord wrote down their Divinely-inspired truths, so the Apostles and a few of their disciples wrote as the were "moved along by the Holy Spirit". The difference between us is that you say you believe your church is THE church Jesus established and I believe that there is not a singular, physical organization that has the corner on that title but that, just as in the first few centuries, there were local congregations that adhered in unison to the teachings of Jesus Christ as spelled out in Scripture - it was truly "universal". That is why there are MANY churches that qualify as of Christ because they contain genuine believers and teach what the Bible says. This spiritual organism designed to be the buttress and support of the truth - and the truth is what God has preserved in Holy Scripture.
So, though the Roman Catholic Church SAYS that it is THE, only true church of Jesus Christ, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, if it is a representative of the Body of Christ, then it MUST continue to teach what the Apostles taught. I disagree that there is such a thing as "Apostolic succession" - as defined as the apostolic authority given by Jesus to his selected twelve and this power being handed down through succession. Rather, I think it is an authority of teaching the truths as they are revealed in scripture. This is a good link that explains, I think in a very good way, what this "succession" was supposed to be all about The Rise of Rome in a Nutshell. In it we learn:
So far, so good? Protestants and Catholics agree to this point. The next step is that the Apostles passed on their faith to others. Easy enough. The Apostles commissioned others to be leaders and authorities in the church. They handed over the faith to followers, like Timothy, who were approved in both their life and teaching. This created a succession of faith and teaching. They would often call this “laying on of hands.” With this “system” in place, the church maintained a safeguard against rogue expressions of the Christian faith. This is why Paul warned about commissioning people too hastily (1 Tim. 5:22).
Again, to this point both Protestants and Catholics agree. We need to pass on the faith. We need to commission others that have been approved. There needs to be accountability. However, the departure comes when we begin to define not only what this succession of authority is, but what it does. Again, we agree that it is the duty of the church to pass on the faith once for all handed to the saints (Jude 3). We agree that the church is the “pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). We also agree that all in this succession are saints and a part of the church. However, Catholics believe that in order for this succession to be valid, it has to be seen as primarily a succession in person. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the primary issue involved it is a succession in teaching, doctrine, and practice. Therefore, Roman Catholics focus on the one to whom the succession is given, while Protestants focus on the teaching and doctrine itself, believing that the person who receives the succession is instrumental, not integral.
Therefore, in essence, for the Roman Catholic, the persons in succession define the Gospel and make up the institutional church which presides over the Gospel. Hence, Catholics have the Pope and the magisterium of bishops (as represented by the fellows in the graph that follow the apostles). For the Protestant, on the other hand, it is the other way around. Only to the degree that the person is in succession with right teaching are they in apostolic succession. A hasty “laying on of hands” is possible, and can damage both the doctrine and reputation of the church.
This is why Protestants are continually going back to the source – the Bible – for final authority (sola Scriptura) and why Roman Catholics are continually going to the institution for final authority.
But there is one more way in which the chasm is further widened between Roman Catholics and Protestants with regard to the issue of apostolic succession. For the Roman Catholic, in order for this institution to have ultimate authority, it must possess the gift of infallibility. For the Protestant, the person upon whom the hands are laid (along with the institution, which is made up of a bunch of fellas upon whom hands have been laid) is fallible. Only the Apostles’ teaching is not. For the Protestant, apostolic succession is a safeguard to the Gospel, but it must be continually tested by the Scriptures.
I encourage you to read the whole article. Thank you, too, for the respectful dialog and I also look forward to eternity in heaven where we will know even as we are known.
You nearly lost me at the first line, which reads, "In order to be a good Protestant, you must be a good anti-Catholic. I read thru it quickly and found nothing but the typical antiCatholic propaganda available all over the web. Just another not-for-profit antiCatholic 501(c)3. This article is couched in more polite terms than some--the faux sense of concern and understanding is a humorous but totally nonbelievable touch, lol--but it's the typical omission of scriptural support for Catholicism coupled with a bit of misdirection, disinformation, then the "logical" conclusions in support of Protestantism. Kind of a disappointment from someone who earlier accused Catholics of trying to dupe ignorant people.
Jesus made promises about His Church. Disbelieve them if you wish. I choose to believe. Jesus was not Himself a sola scriptura Jew. But you are free to be a sola scriptura Christian if you wish. Jesus accepted Jewish teaching authority and tradition. You are free to reject apostolic Christian authority and tradition if you wish. Jesus honors your free choice. How can I do any less? I wish you peace.