I am very familiar with A.T. Robertson's comments on this issue. I will humbly submit that he, like you, are biased. If you will notice, he conveniently leaves out Matthew 26:28, which is the verse that contains the exact same Greek phrase as Acts 2:38. In the Matthew passage, Christ Himself says that His blood was shed for remission of sins. I doubt you would say that in that passage, Christ is saying that He shed his blood because of the remission of sins, would you? Then why do you want to translate Acts 2:38 in that manner, even though no reputable translation on the face of this earth has ever translated Acts 2:38 that way?
You still have not logically answered how you can translate the same phrase, not just the word eis, but the same entire phrase, two totally opposite ways.
Baptism and Acts 2:38 by Matt Slick
Baptismal Regeneration By Dustin Shramek
Most of these experts agree on the Greek construct. And at some point in time they can't all be bias-except perhaps to you who wish to further your interpretation. To say "no reputable translation on the face of this earth has ever translated Acts 2:38 that way" is, well wouldn't you say, an overstatement. If nothing else, the Greek documents agree which is what I base my references. At best all you can say for this verse is that it is questionable which is a pretty poor thing to hang an entire theological position on. Especially when there are other conflicting verses which never mentions baptism.
As far as Matt 26:28 goes, I will not hop around the scriptures. I've had too many people play that game with me before. You fail to make your point with me on how unregenerated people can want to be baptized and failed in explaining how people (not just Cornelius) can be filled with the Holy Spirit (our guarantee) prior to being baptized as so many different scriptures point out.
If you want to believe it is your baptism which saves you that is your business between God.