Excellent article on Acts 22:16 -
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html
The above article is a perfect example to what lengths those who push faith alone regeneration theology will go in order to defend such beliefs. Over 1112 words and 19 cross-references used in an attempt to convince others that Acts 22:16 does not mean what it clearly states. This is no way to defend a theology.
So you went through the trouble to count how many words and how many cross-references were in that article, yet you have no rebuttal for what was written in the article that refutes your biased interpretation of Acts 22:16. Your method of defending a theology is called "flawed hermeneutics."
So according to you, Acts 22:16 must clearly states that baptism washes away sins, in contradiction to numerous passages of scripture which make it clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-9, 26; Ephesians 2:8.9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
In regards to Acts 22:16, as Greek scholar AT Robertson points out, baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, but it does not literally wash away our sins, contrary to your conclusion.
Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes not of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160]. Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).
In Acts 10:43, receiving remission of sins is connected with
"believes in Him" and not with baptism. (Acts 10:43-47) In Acts 26:18, remission of sins is connected with
"sanctified by faith in Me" and not with baptism. In Acts 9, Jesus told Ananias that Paul "is a chosen vessel unto Me" (vs 15), although the apostle had not yet been water baptized. Before Paul was baptized, Christ had already commissioned him to "bear His name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15) and such a commission is not for one who is still lost in their sins. Before Paul’s baptism, Christ had set him aside as one who would "suffer for His name’s sake" (9:16). Can one who is a child of the devil, as all the lost are (Ephesians 2:1-3, John 8:44), really suffer for Christ’s sake? NO.
So, Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was
filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was
BEFORE he was water baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his baptism.
It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning
forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was still lost in his sins.
*HERMENEUTICS*
Since Acts 22:16 "on the surface" appears to teach that baptism literally washes away sins, should we also interpret John 6:54-56 to mean that we literally eat Jesus' flesh and literally drink His blood when we partake of the Lord's supper? Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. So the correct interpretation results in cannibalism? Roman Catholics seem to believe so and teach the false doctrine of transubstantiation.
Yet, Jesus is the Bread of Life and just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus used
figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths. John 6:63 -
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and shed blood, receiving eternal life.
John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.
"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" as the result is the same, eternal life.
*HERMENEUTICS*
No scripture is to be interpreted in isolation from the totality of scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.
Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.
The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.
If you are denying the need for obeying Jesus in the baptism for the remission of sins then you are not placing your faith in the risen Savior. You are putting your faith in your theology.
Where did Jesus say that baptism is the direct cause of us receiving remission of sins? Where does Jesus draw the line in the sand on who will and who will not receive eternal life?
*John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
My faith is in the risen Savior for salvation and not in water baptism. I am trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of my salvation. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 15:1-4; Romans 1:16) If you are denying your need to place your faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation and are instead trusting in water baptism as a supplemental means of salvation, then you are not placing your faith in the risen Savior, but are placing your faith in water baptism and in your theology. This would also mean that you do not believe the gospel. 
1
1
