Is Speaking in Tongues necessary for Bible Salvation

[jfrog]

I personally do not believe that being baptized in water or of the Holy Spirit is a prerequisite for salvation. My belief is that both can come afterward.

Jesus would disagree with you. "5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." From the Jewish stand point, as Jesus was talking to a learned Jew and a teacher of the Law, this is undeniably referencing baptism and receiving the spirit of God.

As I posted earlier, I know MANY Christians who do not speak in tongues. I'm certainly not negating their faith and salvation experience.

Faith alone does not save, if it did the devils would be saved as they believe there iis one God, they believe Jesus is the savior....but they cannot nor would they ACT on that belief...  James talked about faith without works being dead.....there are works that we must do, and baptism is one of them.   Some people can be very sincere, but they can also be sincerely lost.

I tend to be a broad thinker. If, as some has suggested, that only those who speak in tongues are saved, that limits the list considerably. Not wanting to go down that road.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

There is no salvation outside of the way Jesus and his disciples taught in the scripture. EVERY time someone was saved under the time of grace, they have repented, been water baptized in Jesus name, and received the Holy Ghost. 

Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost once in Acts 2 and once in Acts 4:31.  John 3:5 speaks of birth.  Birth seems like it should be a one time event.  So, if John 3:5 is speaking about being filled with the Holy Ghost then we have to conclude that Peter was born of the Spirit two times.  This doesn't make much sense to me?  Does it you?

[yosemite]

Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost once in Acts 2 and once in Acts 4:31.  John 3:5 speaks of birth.  Birth seems like it should be a one time event.  So, if John 3:5 is speaking about being filled with the Holy Ghost then we have to conclude that Peter was born of the Spirit two times. This doesn't make much sense to me?  Does it you?

makes perfect sence to me!! you dont get born of the spirit twice but refreshed. like a good nights rest.
Ac 3:19  Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

it didnt say one time but times of refreshing. more than one.

11  For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12  To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
romans 15:32  That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed.

some say he was to be rested from the journey, but i feel since he added "with you" it had a deeper meaning.

1Co 14:22  Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

the initial evidence,(sign) is for the unbeliever. prophesying is not for the unbeliever. this to me says the sign is a proof for ourselves. we had an experience that we can testify to. Acts 19 it says they first spoke in tongues(had an evedence and believed they received) then prophesied for now they are beleivers. i do not beleive the incident in acts 19 was simotaneously done. i beleive they were having an ole timey so nuff church service where the spirit was moving on them and may have been hours and hours of service before any prophesying was done. just like the two fishes and five loaves, the bible is silent on what they done with the fragments. I beleive the young lad went home with his parents and had a feast. but can not prove it cause the bible is silent on it. we must be led of the spirit. what a love letter the Bible is to those who see it, hear it, read it, know it, and hide it in their heart.

[Raven180]

Maybe a few erroneously call the Holy Ghost tongues.

Even if it's only a few, that's a few too many, and indicates a sore lack of proper teaching.

However, its far more amazing to me at how many apostolics I've spoken to that erroneously tell me that they believe the Holy Ghost is required for salvation and believe tongues are required for the Holy Ghost but then try to deny believing tongues are required for salvation.  I applaud you for not doing this!

That's pretty backward, if anyone does or says that. I've not met one who would say that.

Any time a person strings together one verse here and one verse there in order to make a doctrine it raises a red flag for me.

Like the majority of Apostles in their various epistles?  

Did you have faith when you were baptized?  If you didn't then you might should think about being rebaptized because baptism must be done with faith, otherwise you just got wet.

Who gets baptized without having faith? A person must needs repent prior, which, along with faith, are the two first principles of the doctrine of Christ (Hebrews 6:1-3).

I am very glad you brought up the joel prophecy because, if his prophecy indicates anything is to accompany the Holy Ghost it indicates that prophecy instead of tongues are to accompany the reception Holy Ghost.

I would almost make the same case, except I think it can be show rather well that speaking in tongues as one first receives the Holy Spirit is to prophesy, as opposed to just being a manifestation of the Spirit during charismata, which you described. "This is that..." is pretty straight forward.

As far as "...and magnified God" or "...and prophesied" from Acts 10:46 and 19:6, respectively, one might consider that kai can be understood to mean "even", thereby indicating that the magnification of God in Acts 10 and the prophetic utterance in Acts 19 were in fact, in tongues.
 

Oh, I forgot one other thing.  There is not one bible translation that supports Mark 16:17 being "in tongues speak new things".

Word Study Greek-English New Testament by Paul R. McReynolds, which uses the USB 3rd Edition of the Greek New Testament. A literal word for word translation of the Greek, using Greek syntax, as opposed to English, indicates that what I wrote is accurate.

[titushome]

[jfrog]

Maybe a few erroneously call the Holy Ghost tongues.

Even if it's only a few, that's a few too many, and indicates a sore lack of proper teaching.

However, its far more amazing to me at how many apostolics I've spoken to that erroneously tell me that they believe the Holy Ghost is required for salvation and believe tongues are required for the Holy Ghost but then try to deny believing tongues are required for salvation.  I applaud you for not doing this!

That's pretty backward, if anyone does or says that. I've not met one who would say that.

Well, I've never seen anyone call the Holy Ghost tongues.  I don't doubt that you have though...

Any time a person strings together one verse here and one verse there in order to make a doctrine it raises a red flag for me.

Like the majority of Apostles in their various epistles?  

Then you should have no problem when I do the same thing

Did you have faith when you were baptized?  If you didn't then you might should think about being rebaptized because baptism must be done with faith, otherwise you just got wet.

Who gets baptized without having faith? A person must needs repent prior, which, along with faith, are the two first principles of the doctrine of Christ (Hebrews 6:1-3).

You originally said this:  "Secondly, I like that Romans 8:9 was brought up. It's not the only proof text, but it might be the best one. Everyone wanting to be a Christian must line up with "...if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you". Why? Because if the Spirit of God does not dwell in someone, then they are in the flesh, and those in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:8 ) which means that they don't have faith, because without faith it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6), hence they are not saved by grace according to Ephesians 2:8."

But now you have told me that those who were baptized had faith at the moment of their baptism.  I thought it would be obvious why this would be a problem in relation to what you originally said.  I guess its not as obvious as I thought, so I will explain: If those who are baptized have faith then it is possible for them to please God.  So because it is possible for them to please God that means they are not in the flesh.  Because they are not in the flesh that means the Spirit of God must dwell in them.  (But not everyone that was baptized had been filled with the Holy Ghost by the time of their baptism and yet from above we know that those people must have had the Spirit of God dwelling in them by the time of their baptism!)

So are you sure you still don't have a problem with jumping from verse to verse to verse?  Or is my explanation true?

I am very glad you brought up the joel prophecy because, if his prophecy indicates anything is to accompany the Holy Ghost it indicates that prophecy instead of tongues are to accompany the reception Holy Ghost.

I would almost make the same case, except I think it can be show rather well that speaking in tongues as one first receives the Holy Spirit is to prophesy, as opposed to just being a manifestation of the Spirit during charismata, which you described. "This is that..." is pretty straight forward.

As far as "...and magnified God" or "...and prophesied" from Acts 10:46 and 19:6, respectively, one might consider that kai can be understood to mean "even", thereby indicating that the magnification of God in Acts 10 and the prophetic utterance in Acts 19 were in fact, in tongues.

How can it be shown that speaking in tongues as one first receives the Holy Spirit is to prophesy?  You see, I have no doubt that you can show the possibility that speaking in tongues is to prophesy.  However, to show it is to prophesy would mean that no other alternate explanation could exist.  I already gave one alternate explanation.
 

Oh, I forgot one other thing.  There is not one bible translation that supports Mark 16:17 being "in tongues speak new things".

Word Study Greek-English New Testament by Paul R. McReynolds, which uses the USB 3rd Edition of the Greek New Testament. A literal word for word translation of the Greek, using Greek syntax, as opposed to English, indicates that what I wrote is accurate.

I found the source and looked it up.  You are correct.  That is interesting.  However, since the other things listed in Mark 16:17-18 are not things done by every believer then Mark 16:17 cannot be used as proof that prophetic tongues or even tongues will be spoken by every believer.

[yosemite]

Lu 8:10  And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

[nwlife]

And how does luke 8:10 reflect on the discussion?  I see no application for it here.

[Raven180]

Well, I've never seen anyone call the Holy Ghost tongues.  I don't doubt that you have though...

Yeah, I have, unfortunately.

Then you should have no problem when I do the same thing

I don't necessarily mind. But there are limitations...

But now you have told me that those who were baptized had faith at the moment of their baptism.  I thought it would be obvious why this would be a problem in relation to what you originally said.  I guess its not as obvious as I thought, so I will explain: If those who are baptized have faith then it is possible for them to please God.  So because it is possible for them to please God that means they are not in the flesh.  Because they are not in the flesh that means the Spirit of God must dwell in them.  (But not everyone that was baptized had been filled with the Holy Ghost by the time of their baptism and yet from above we know that those people must have had the Spirit of God dwelling in them by the time of their baptism!)

So are you sure you still don't have a problem with jumping from verse to verse to verse?  Or is my explanation true?

I'm sure I don't have a problem. And no, I don't think your explanation is true. Romans 1:17 comes into play here. People move from faith to faith. There are levels involved.

How can it be shown that speaking in tongues as one first receives the Holy Spirit is to prophesy?  You see, I have no doubt that you can show the possibility that speaking in tongues is to prophesy.  However, to show it is to prophesy would mean that no other alternate explanation could exist.  I already gave one alternate explanation.

What does it mean to prophesy, but to speak as the Spirit of God comes upon, moves, or in some other way, gives someone the ability to speak words from God? What does it matter what language it is in? Does it even matter if the language one is speaking as God speaks through them is new to the speaker? It's still prophesying. 
 

However, since the other things listed in Mark 16:17-18 are not things done by every believer then Mark 16:17 cannot be used as proof that prophetic tongues or even tongues will be spoken by every believer.

I wouldn't say that Mark 16:17 is a proof-text if taken in isolation. However, when combined with other more obvious verses that actually can stand alone, Mark 16:17 lends great support for the belief that speaking in tongues is the only Bible evidence that one has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[Raven180]

Lu 8:10  And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

And how does luke 8:10 reflect on the discussion?  I see no application for it here.

For what it's worth, I see the application.

[titushome]

What does it mean to prophesy, but to speak as the Spirit of God comes upon, moves, or in some other way, gives someone the ability to speak words from God? What does it matter what language it is in? Does it even matter if the language one is speaking as God speaks through them is new to the speaker? It's still prophesying. 

There is at least this difference, if not more: with speaking in tongues the Spirit controls one's tongue, hence the words spoken also.  With prophecy the Spirit gives one the message to speak, but one is still in control of one's own tongue, and must still choose how to phrase the message given.

[nwlife]

Lu 8:10  And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

And how does luke 8:10 reflect on the discussion?  I see no application for it here.

For what it's worth, I see the application.

The only thing I see this reflecting in use of this scripture without any explanation is in  most conversations I have ever had was that the person usually using it means that since you don't believe my view of things, God has blinded your eyes and ears so you won't see or hear or accept the "truth".
I wasn't sure if that was what yosemite meant or not, that was why I was asking him what he was intending to say. For there was no logical application for that scripture in the current conversation flow.

[Raven180]

What does it mean to prophesy, but to speak as the Spirit of God comes upon, moves, or in some other way, gives someone the ability to speak words from God? What does it matter what language it is in? Does it even matter if the language one is speaking as God speaks through them is new to the speaker? It's still prophesying. 

There is at least this difference, if not more: with speaking in tongues the Spirit controls one's tongue, hence the words spoken also.  With prophecy the Spirit gives one the message to speak, but one is still in control of one's own tongue, and must still choose how to phrase the message given.

I don't entirely agree. Yes, the words spoken are of the Spirit when speaking in tongues, but the tongue is not completely overwhelmed by the Spirit, else someone who is speaking in tongues would not be able to start/stop themselves from doing so. Granted, there must be volition of the human will, but it's not like God wrests all control away from the speaker and makes them speak.

Secondly, in terms of prophesying, we shouldn't assume that God is not also choosing the words, else we come too close to someone prophesying out of their own spirit, which is sincerely frowned upon by God. Further, while the "spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet", the speaker must also yield his/her will just the same as when speaking in tongues, meaning they can also start/stop, and if the person is truly submitted to God, then God will give the words as He so decides, even as the speaker articulates the message in his or her own way, i.e. volume, inflection, tone, etc.

Make sense?

[Raven180]

The only thing I see this reflecting in use of this scripture without any explanation is in  most conversations I have ever had was that the person usually using it means that since you don't believe my view of things, God has blinded your eyes and ears so you won't see or hear or accept the "truth".

Isn't that how Jesus meant it?

[Raven180]

I wasn't sure if that was what yosemite meant or not, that was why I was asking him what he was intending to say. For there was no logical application for that scripture in the current conversation flow.

Well, we are talking the Holy Spirit generally, and speaking in tongues, specifically, and since the Kingdom of God is righteousness, joy, and peace, in the Holy Spirit, we can safely assume that any mystery involved is pertinent to the discussion. But I digress. I'll let Yosemite answer for himself...

[nwlife]

Luke chapter 8 still has no relevance to the conversation about speaking in tongues though.  

[jfrog]

Well, I've never seen anyone call the Holy Ghost tongues.  I don't doubt that you have though...

Yeah, I have, unfortunately.

Then you should have no problem when I do the same thing

I don't necessarily mind. But there are limitations...

But now you have told me that those who were baptized had faith at the moment of their baptism.  I thought it would be obvious why this would be a problem in relation to what you originally said.  I guess its not as obvious as I thought, so I will explain: If those who are baptized have faith then it is possible for them to please God.  So because it is possible for them to please God that means they are not in the flesh.  Because they are not in the flesh that means the Spirit of God must dwell in them.  (But not everyone that was baptized had been filled with the Holy Ghost by the time of their baptism and yet from above we know that those people must have had the Spirit of God dwelling in them by the time of their baptism!)

So are you sure you still don't have a problem with jumping from verse to verse to verse?  Or is my explanation true?

I'm sure I don't have a problem. And no, I don't think your explanation is true. Romans 1:17 comes into play here. People move from faith to faith. There are levels involved.

First, Romans 1:17 doesn't speak at all of different levels of faith.  Romans 1:17 speaks of the same type of faith that is held by two different types of people, the Jews and the Gentiles.  That being said, the bible in other places does seem to make it apparent that different levels of faith exist.  However, you are not just saying that different levels of faith exist but that the fact that different levels of faith exist implies that my explanation must be wrong.  The only way that different levels of faith existing could make my explanation wrong is IF there is a lesser level of faith required to be baptized than the level of faith that Hebrews 11:6 is speaking about.  So the question I want to ask is this: "Is there any reason from the context of Hebrews 11 to assume that Hebrews 11:6 is speaking of a higher level of faith than is required for a person to be baptized?"

How can it be shown that speaking in tongues as one first receives the Holy Spirit is to prophesy?  You see, I have no doubt that you can show the possibility that speaking in tongues is to prophesy.  However, to show it is to prophesy would mean that no other alternate explanation could exist.  I already gave one alternate explanation.

What does it mean to prophesy, but to speak as the Spirit of God comes upon, moves, or in some other way, gives someone the ability to speak words from God? What does it matter what language it is in? Does it even matter if the language one is speaking as God speaks through them is new to the speaker? It's still prophesying.

Words coming from God does not make those words prophecy no matter how much you want them to.  You see, the bible differentiates between tongues and prophecy.  The bible defines the difference between these two things in such a way that tongues cannot be prophecy (unless they are understood).

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

So, prophecy is to to men; to be understood by men.

For further proof, consider this verse.

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

If speaking with tongues is prophesy then how can Paul write that he would rather us prophesy than speak in tongues?

However, since the other things listed in Mark 16:17-18 are not things done by every believer then Mark 16:17 cannot be used as proof that prophetic tongues or even tongues will be spoken by every believer.

I wouldn't say that Mark 16:17 is a proof-text if taken in isolation. However, when combined with other more obvious verses that actually can stand alone, Mark 16:17 lends great support for the belief that speaking in tongues is the only Bible evidence that one has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:17 can only show the possibility that prophesy can be done through tongues.  I've not disputed this.  Prophesy can be done through tongues when those tongues are understood.  However, besides relating tongues and prophecy this verse provides absolutely no other support for the initial evidence of tongues doctrine.  I'm a little confused on how you can define that as great support for the initial evidence of tongues doctrine.

[(R.I.P.) YooperYankDude]

So then... it must be assumed, if God chooses the words... that either...

A. God speaks 17th century English... (hence all the thee's, thou's, ye... and cometh... in many prophesies... especially considering "His returning soon...")
B. They are choosing to change it...
C. They are false prophets?

Just an an observation...

[jfrog]

So then... it must be assumed, if God chooses the words... that either...

A. God speaks 17th century English... (hence all the thee's, thou's, ye... and cometh... in many prophesies... especially considering "His returning soon...")
B. They are choosing to change it...
C. They are false prophets?

Just an an observation...

A very good observation 

[jfrog]

Luke chapter 8 still has no relevance to the conversation about speaking in tongues though.  

Sure it does.  It's just that the people who quoted it didn't understand that they were supposed to apply it to themselves and not to others jkjk

On a serious note, that verse should really never be used in a discussion because the only purpose someone can have for quoting it is to incite the other side to anger.  When a person quotes that verse it is a claim by that person that says I'm right and your wrong.  It's a claim that I'm more spiritual than you...

[Raven180]

First, Romans 1:17 doesn't speak at all of different levels of faith...

I agree that it's referring to Jews and Gentiles, as v. 16 makes the context very clear. I would say, however, that if, as you say it's the same type of faith, then it's very confusing, because it's talking about the righteousness of God being revealed from the one to the other. A transition is strongly implied, especially when considering the Greek prepositions ek (from) and eis (to).

Looking at their respective definitions, they, when their meanings are combined in such a way as Romans 1:17 does, connote a movement or exit away from one into or toward another. It can also speak of an emission from one to another. So, the faith talked about here of the Jew, moves or exits (perhaps emanates is a good word) from one location to another, namely, into or toward the faith of the Gentile. It's a transmission of faith. But, in the transmission, there is also a transformation, because the Jew, who formerly believed in God only, now must also believe in Jesus, that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That's leveling up, so to speak. The Gentile also changes faith, from whatever pagan or heathen belief once held, to belief in the One True God. So, as the faith of the Old Testament Jew transforms, or perhaps grows is a better way to put, to include the Gospel of the Son of God, it then can be transmitted to the formerly pagan Gentile, so long as that Gentile likewise believes in the Gospel.

If the faith of a Jew does not grow to include Jesus as his Lord and Christ, it does not negate their faith in the One True God, such as we have now amongst those Jewish people that still worship the same God that we do, just without understanding/believing the manifestation of this God into flesh.

They have faith. But it's a different level. Even a Gentile may believe in this One True God, as in His existence, but still not believe in Him (if you know what I mean) or His Son, such as to be saved. And this goes right into Hebrews 11:6.

[Raven180]

...there is a lesser level of faith required to be baptized than the level of faith that Hebrews 11:6 is speaking about.

Hebrews 11:6 has two levels of faith already inside of it. Level 1 is the belief/acknowledgement of the existence of God. Millions of people, from the theist who believes in an impersonal god, to any number of other ideas or people who will admit that God exists, but don't actively attempt to reach for Level 2, which is that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. So, someone can believe God exists, but not seek Him, say, for repentance and remission of sins, and they still have faith, but at a lesser level. Then there are those who believe God exists but also seek Him for the reward(s) He promises them. This is a higher level of faith. Both have faith, but at different levels.

So when it comes to pre-baptism faith and Hebrews 11:6, obviously, anyone who is going to be baptized must needs have repented from their dead works and have faith toward God, implicitly announcing that they have faith in God's existence. But they are also leveling up to a higher faith by repenting to this God they believe exists, and by desiring to be baptized so that they may be rewarded with all the rights and privileges granted to those immersed in the name of the Lord. That is a higher level of faith. Subsequent (and sometimes before, too) to water immersion a person can seek or believe God for the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is the seal unto our redemption. And, in going back to Romans 8:9, if someone does not have the Holy Spirit, they do not belong to God/Christ, and/because, God/Christ knows them that are His.

In the event that someone has been immersed in the name of Jesus subsequent to God granting them repentance, then, yes, they are, in a sense, exhibiting Hebrews 11:6 faith. But what happens when they don't seek the Holy Spirit, as does happen? If they even, how shall I say it, stop seeking God for more, i.e. for the complete born again experience, for whatever reason. Then what? They obtained a certain level of faith, but did not or cannot, for whatever reason, proceed to the next level of faith, which is living in the Spirit, being led by the Spirit, having the Spirit of God truly dwell in them, etc. If and when this occurs, as much as they might believe and have faith otherwise, they are still carnally minded and are no longer pleasing God because their lack of faith and their lack of continuing to seek God indicates a rejection of God's Spirit.

Yes, they had Hebrews 11:6 faith in order to repent and be baptized, and their obedience to the command pleased God and God rewarded them with remission of sins. But, if they stopped there, while not nullifying their faith entirely, they are stagnating it to the point of not truly belonging to Christ/God.

[jfrog]

First, Romans 1:17 doesn't speak at all of different levels of faith...

I agree that it's referring to Jews and Gentiles, as v. 16 makes the context very clear. I would say, however, that if, as you say it's the same type of faith, then it's very confusing, because it's talking about the righteousness of God being revealed from the one to the other. A transition is strongly implied, especially when considering the Greek prepositions ek (from) and eis (to).

Looking at their respective definitions, they, when their meanings are combined in such a way as Romans 1:17 does, connote a movement or exit away from one into or toward another. It can also speak of an emission from one to another. So, the faith talked about here of the Jew, moves or exits (perhaps emanates is a good word) from one location to another, namely, into or toward the faith of the Gentile. It's a transmission of faith. But, in the transmission, there is also a transformation, because the Jew, who formerly believed in God only, now must also believe in Jesus, that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That's leveling up, so to speak. The Gentile also changes faith, from whatever pagan or heathen belief once held, to belief in the One True God. So, as the faith of the Old Testament Jew transforms, or perhaps grows is a better way to put, to include the Gospel of the Son of God, it then can be transmitted to the formerly pagan Gentile, so long as that Gentile likewise believes in the Gospel.

If the faith of a Jew does not grow to include Jesus as his Lord and Christ, it does not negate their faith in the One True God, such as we have now amongst those Jewish people that still worship the same God that we do, just without understanding/believing the manifestation of this God into flesh.

They have faith. But it's a different level. Even a Gentile may believe in this One True God, as in His existence, but still not believe in Him (if you know what I mean) or His Son, such as to be saved. And this goes right into Hebrews 11:6.

There are a variety of opinions by commentators on that clause in Romans 1:17: from faith to faith.  So I think that we can agree to disagree on Romans 1:17.  Though this disagreement shouldn't really affect the rest of our discussion, because I already agreed with the principle that you were trying to bring forth with this verse, the principle that there are different levels of faith.

I have only quoted the relevant parts from the following commentaries.
http://bible.cc/romans/1-17.htm

Geneva Study Bible

{6} For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from {z} faith to faith: {7} as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

(z) From faith, which increases daily.

People's New Testament

From faith to faith. This clause has caused much discussion. The generally received view is thus stated by Dr. Schaff:

The righteousness is revealed from faith, or through means of faith, in order to produce faith in others.''

It is revealed to us by believing (faith), and the duty of the believer is to extend the gospel, or to extend the faith. Says Dr. Schaff,

Believing includes knowledge and belief, assent and surrender, appropriation and application.''

Wesley's Notes

From faith to faith - By a gradual series of still clearer and clearer promises. As it is written - St. Paul had just laid down three propositions: Righteousness is by faith, Rom 1:17: Salvation is by righteousness, Rom 1:16: Both to the Jews and to the gentiles, Rom 1:16. Now all these are confirmed by that single sentence, The just shall live by faith...

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

from faith to faith-a difficult clause. Most interpreters (judging from the sense of such phrases elsewhere) take it to mean, "from one degree of faith to another." But this agrees ill with the apostle's design, which has nothing to do with the progressive stages of faith, but solely with faith itself as the appointed way of receiving God's "righteousness." We prefer, therefore, to understand it thus: "The righteousness of God is in the gospel message, revealed (to be) from (or 'by') faith to (or 'for') faith," that is, "in order to be by faith received." (So substantially, Melville, Meyer, Stuart, Bloomfield, &c.).

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

Faith is all in all, both in the beginning and progress of Christian life. It is not from faith to works, as if faith put us into a justified state, and then works kept us in it; but it is all along from faith to faith; it is faith pressing forward, and gaining the victory over unbelief.

[jfrog]

...there is a lesser level of faith required to be baptized than the level of faith that Hebrews 11:6 is speaking about.

Hebrews 11:6 has two levels of faith already inside of it. Level 1 is the belief/acknowledgement of the existence of God. Millions of people, from the theist who believes in an impersonal god, to any number of other ideas or people who will admit that God exists, but don't actively attempt to reach for Level 2, which is that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. So, someone can believe God exists, but not seek Him, say, for repentance and remission of sins, and they still have faith, but at a lesser level. Then there are those who believe God exists but also seek Him for the reward(s) He promises them. This is a higher level of faith. Both have faith, but at different levels.

I more or less agree with what you are getting at here.  I probably would have worded it much differently, but I think you are meaning about the same as I would.

So when it comes to pre-baptism faith and Hebrews 11:6, obviously, anyone who is going to be baptized must needs have repented from their dead works and have faith toward God, implicitly announcing that they have faith in God's existence. But they are also leveling up to a higher faith by repenting to this God they believe exists, and by desiring to be baptized so that they may be rewarded with all the rights and privileges granted to those immersed in the name of the Lord. That is a higher level of faith. Subsequent (and sometimes before, too) to water immersion a person can seek or believe God for the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is the seal unto our redemption. And, in going back to Romans 8:9, if someone does not have the Holy Spirit, they do not belong to God/Christ, and/because, God/Christ knows them that are His.

In the event that someone has been immersed in the name of Jesus subsequent to God granting them repentance, then, yes, they are, in a sense, exhibiting Hebrews 11:6 faith. But what happens when they don't seek the Holy Spirit, as does happen? If they even, how shall I say it, stop seeking God for more, i.e. for the complete born again experience, for whatever reason. Then what? They obtained a certain level of faith, but did not or cannot, for whatever reason, proceed to the next level of faith, which is living in the Spirit, being led by the Spirit, having the Spirit of God truly dwell in them, etc. If and when this occurs, as much as they might believe and have faith otherwise, they are still carnally minded and are no longer pleasing God because their lack of faith and their lack of continuing to seek God indicates a rejection of God's Spirit.

Yes, they had Hebrews 11:6 faith in order to repent and be baptized, and their obedience to the command pleased God and God rewarded them with remission of sins. But, if they stopped there, while not nullifying their faith entirely, they are stagnating it to the point of not truly belonging to Christ/God.

"You originally said this:  "Secondly, I like that Romans 8:9 was brought up. It's not the only proof text, but it might be the best one. Everyone wanting to be a Christian must line up with "...if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you". Why? Because if the Spirit of God does not dwell in someone, then they are in the flesh, and those in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:8 ) which means that they don't have faith, because without faith it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6), hence they are not saved by grace according to Ephesians 2:8.""

What you originally said is directly in contradiction with what I bolded above.  In one place you say that those without the Holy Ghost don't have Hebrews 11:6 faith and in the other place you say they do.
There is another contradiction too.  In one place you said that those without the Holy Ghost cannot please God but just now you said they could.

It is because of contradictions like these that I believe your original statement is wrong and that my statement is true.  My statement was:

"But now you have told me that those who were baptized had faith at the moment of their baptism.  I thought it would be obvious why this would be a problem in relation to what you originally said.  I guess its not as obvious as I thought, so I will explain: If those who are baptized have faith then it is possible for them to please God.  So because it is possible for them to please God that means they are not in the flesh.  Because they are not in the flesh that means the Spirit of God must dwell in them.  (But not everyone that was baptized had been filled with the Holy Ghost by the time of their baptism and yet from above we know that those people must have had the Spirit of God dwelling in them by the time of their baptism!)"

[yosemite]

Luke chapter 8 still has no relevance to the conversation about speaking in tongues though.  

have you had the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues as an evidence? If not then you do not see what i see. you dont have the assurance that i have. that is how it is relative.

[jfrog]

Luke chapter 8 still has no relevance to the conversation about speaking in tongues though.  

have you had the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues as an evidence? If not then you do not see what i see. you dont have the assurance that i have. that is how it is relative.

I have...