Yes, you specifically said all the family members in Acts 16 repented & believed first. We don't know that. Acts 16:14-15 clearly show we don't know that. So you need to back down on your 100% filter of "repent/believe"...because Scripture does provide for us a 100% filter like your systematics have invented.
HOWEVER: the scriptures, where it does speak of it, says we must all repent before baptism...
Yes...but, again, not 100%...Acts 16:14-15 speaks of baptism but no repentance. You need to back off your "absolutist" approach.
Likewise, baptism was placed as a priority for Saul pre-calling on His Name (Acts 22:8-16). And if you try claiming ONCE AGAIN that Saul already knew the Lord the moment Jesus called His name, "Saul" -- then you're going to have to re-educated thousands of theologians who claim Acts 22 is about a "conversion" story...what? Was Saul only "re-dedicating his already Christian life?" (Give me a break) Theologians say Jesus changing his name from Saul to Paul was part & parcel of this conversion.
As for Acts 2...all I pointed out is that Acts 2:38-39 applies to "children" -- the text plainly says so...so stop subtracting children.
What do ya figure, the 3 month old babies jumped up as said, 'Hallelujah, praise God, and ran for the nearest river when they heard Peter speak???
(What do ya figure, the 8-day old babies who were circumcized in OT times jumped up and said, 'Hallelujah, praise God, we're part of the covenant people of God?'")
Yet, no matter how much you might want to exclude 8-day old babies from being the people of God in OT times ... yet they were! Coinciding with that -- the apostle Paul associates baptism with circumcision:
Col. 2:11-12: In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, NOT with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
The bottom line here is it's not...
...the water of baptism that saves us...
...a decision for Christ that saves us...
...a mental assent that saves us...
...100% correct theological alignment that saves us...
First of all, the WHO is key: 'Tis a Person who saves us -- Jesus Christ -- and He chooses to use His Word -- His Gospel in doing that.
All that's involved in baptism is God speaking His Salvific, powerful Word through the water:
>...just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word (Eph. 5:25-26)
1 Peter 3:21: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...
Q: If baptism has no "salvific" reference point, why does Peter come right and disagree with you? (I mean, you have a right to disagree, just note you're disagreeing w/Peter)
The true dividing line on baptism within the body of Christ really boils down to this: Is baptism an act of man or is it an act of God. If you choose "man," then you get what a ritualized ordinance (law) of what man can do. (And I'll tell you what, men can do can in no way bring out the effects described of baptism in Romans 6:3-4...that shows what God can do).
As for Acts 2...all I pointed out is that Acts 2:38-39 applies to "children" -- the text plainly says so...so stop subtracting children.
Now you've resorted to telling outright lies...Go away...