There is a problem with that. Scripture says, "Repent and be baptized", a two-fold COMMAND. Without repentance, baptism means nothing.
That is why it is called the believer's baptism. Only those who have salvation are eligible for the waters of baptism.
this is an example of a common mistake of interpetation.
The example you are talking about is Peter giving a sermon to a crowd of people in the temple on pentecost.
You are taking one phrase out of Peter's sermon and essentially saying that this phrase is a doctrinal stricture (in other words this is the only way it can ever happen, this is THE doctrinal definition).
However, Peter didn't say that in his sermon. More over, his sermon that day was not given as a doctrinal commentary, or a treatise or anything about abstract principles of doctrine at all.
In fact his sermon was completely evangelistic and PRACTICAL. That is the important point.
What Peter was telling them was what that specific group of people needed to do in order to be saved. His words apply specifically to that group of people in that context, and not necessarily as a doctrinal stricture for all people in all circumstances.
For example.. if your assertion here were basically correct, that a person MUST repent and be baptized in order to be saved. It would be impossible for infants or young children to be saved because they can not repent.
Most people who have similar views to you, believe something akin to the idea of an age of accountability before which a person need not repent because they aren't responsible etc...
However, the problem is Peter in the instance you quote makes no mention of this at all... so if his words there are meant to be a universal truth for all people in all circumstances, then there can't possibly be any such thing as an age of accountability before which people need not repent.
If you consider specifically the case of adults who are capable of repenting, you will find that Catholics, just like all other orthodox Christians believe that they must repent before receiving baptism.
However, a key difference is that in the Catholic view the person's salvation is accomplished by BOTH repentance AND baptism, while many protestants hold that it is accomplished ONLY by repentance.
The situation with the unconscious man reminds me of the instance in scripture where the paralytic man's friends brought him to Jesus, and cut a whole in the roof to get the man in to see Jesus.
In that instance the man himself could do nothing, he could not get himself in to see Jesus.. he could literally not demonstrate any faith at all. All of the faith demonstrated was demonstrated by his friends in all that they did to get him in to see Jesus.
When Jesus healed the man he said "your faith has made you whole."
Sometimes people aren't able to express their own faith for whatever reason and only by the faith of their friends or family are they brought before God.. but in the end, as far as I can see, God will not save a person who has no faith of their own. It might be even better to say it this way... God will not save a person who will not receive faith of their own.
The reality of the matter is that we can not have faith without God giving it to us.. we can not even repent without God giving us conviction and then even repentance itself.
It seems strange to me that people can accept that repentance is really a work of God, not man... but they can't accept that baptism is. In my opinion this is because of the poison of modernism that wormed its way into Christianity... but thats just me
