Chad:  

<< Precisely.  But one cannot separate the heart circumcision (regeneration) from baptism.  Baptism is outward signification of what has transpired in the heart (Titus 3:5).  IMHO, we baptists have been too quick to protest the link between the circumcision of the heart and baptism because of historical abuse of that passage.  We too quickly reduce baptism to mere "memorial". Baptism is a confession that inward circumcision has transpired, and thus, the one baptized rightly belongs to the visible church.  In fact, this view of baptism is a polemic against paedobaptism (at least the way it has been historically articulated... Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins agree with our argument in their paedobaptism by claiming that the hearts of their infants have been inwardly circumcised), because infants cannot "confess" to an inward circumcision - regeneration.  It is regeneration/heart circumcision that *really* places the justified into the New Creation/New Covenant. Baptism is the outward manifestation of the inward reality that *visibly* places the justified into the New Creation/New Covenant.  Because of this, those who claim to have been regenerated are in grave error if they refuse, for any reason, to be baptized.  The scriptures make no such distinction (something our paedo friends rightly pick up on).

It is also MHO that because baptism is the outward signification of the inward reality that placing distance between regeneration and baptism has been to our theological/eschatological detriment.  But that's another issue. :-) >>

While I would agree that you cannot and should not separate the two, I do believe that the passage distinguishes between them, and that this distinction will not support identifying the one with the other.  IMHO if the Col. 2 text is carefully exegeted the following conclusions may be drawn:

1.  The connection between physical circumcision and water baptism is quite indirect.  This connection only comes via the following linkage in the passage: 1) physical circumcision is emblematic of spiritual/heart circumcision ("the circumcision of Christ").  2) Spiritual/heart circumcision has a relationship to spiritual baptism.  3) Spiritual baptism is depicted in water baptism.  What we have then is the following: physical circumcision -> spiritual circumcision - spiritual baptism <- water baptism. 

Therefore, any connection involved between the two physical signs is not a direct one.  Nor is it exact, that is, the two may not be identified or seen as depicting identical spiritual realities due to the next point.

2.  What is involved in spiritual baptism and depicted in water baptism goes beyond what is indicated in circumcision.  Death, burial and resurrection are involved in the content of baptism.  Circumcision only depicts part of this picture.  It is only directly linked to the "burial" aspect of baptism in the text.  On this point I would particularly draw your attention to the following language in the text of verse 12:
"wherein also ye are risen with him".  It is in this reality where we find baptism transcending the truths depicted in circumcision.  

While there is a relationship, there is not identity.  Though there are shared or common elements, there are distinctions.

Soli Deo Gloria,

John T. "Jack" Jeffery