I'm assuming you mean that having a Bible based belief in what your god has done for you is required in order to get the Holy Spirit, correct? If so, then you do need the Bible (not necessarily the physical book in front of you) in order to have a Bible based belief. And according to you, a Bible based belief of what your god has done is needed in order to get the Holy Spirit, and you need the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. So, it's a circular argument, which begs the question of why we should believe what the Bible says this god has done for us. That is where your faith comes in though, since that question doesn't seem to be answerable by any demonstrable means.
Experience based knowledge of steps to take in order to get a reward isn't faith. Faith is the belief in something despite lacking a demonstrable reason for this belief. What you're doing is equivocating. I see the similarities though, and I used to make the same mistake because I wanted to believe it was all the same and could all just be called "faith". Now, I would say that our adherence to claims can fall on a spectrum between complete faith and complete knowledge. The more demonstrable evidence one has for a belief, the more towards knowledge it becomes to them. However, the distinctions between the concepts are important.
The example you gave of the employer isn't heavy in faith. It is more experience based knowledge. If my employer wasn't able to pay me, I would have to admit I was wrong about him. I would have to alter my knowledge. That's different from faith. Belief that an intelligent being creating the universe is more faith. No demonstrable reasons to believe it to my knowledge.