Chad:

<< The "sign" view of baptism isn't to the exclusion of the "memorial" view, nor is the "memorial" view to the exclusion of the "sign" view.  It's "both/and", not "either/or".  In fact, Col. 2 places a close connection
between baptism and regeneration.  Col. 2 allows for the sign view within its eschatology: Christ's resurrection is the reality behind regeneration.  God "made (us) alive" together with him"... our regeneration... was secured by "raised him from the dead"... Christ's resurrection.  Without the
resurrection, there is no regeneration.  If baptism is tied to the resurrection of Christ, it is tied to regeneration because the two are one and the same... our regeneration is our participation in the resurrection of God (raised "with him").  One cannot speak of the resurrection and our
participation in it without speaking of regeneration because resurrection and regeneration are two sides of the same coin. >>

While I find myself in agreement with much of what you have posted above, I must take issue with the following:

On the relationship between baptism and regeneration you have used the following phrases: "a close connection", and "tied to".  

Unfortunately, I am unable to find any basis for either in the passage in question.  In point of fact, I would emphasize the "with him" to be found in verses 12 (twice), and 13 (also cp. vs. 20).  The passage is referring to our co-burial and co-resurrection with Christ in his historical burial and resurrection.  I doubt that you would place verse 14 temporally with our regeneration, and am left wondering how you can consistently place verses 12-13 there.  Spiritual baptism, the reality signified in water baptism, is here spelled out as involving our union with Christ in his finished work, specifically his burial and resurrection.  This union, that is, our union with Christ's burial and resurrection, are not explained here as taking place at our regeneration, but necessarily are seen as contemporaneous with his burial and resurrection via that union.  It would seem to me that you must ignore, or at best minimize the "with him"s in this passage in your attempt to place what it speaks of at (or, in) our regeneration.

On the relationship between resurrection and regeneration you have written as follows: "the reality behind", "the two are one and the same", and "two sides of the same coin".

This seems quite inconsistent to me.  You have two realities. You speak of one as "the reality behind" the other.  I am at a loss for an explanation of how the two could be "one and the same" at the same time as one of them is "the reality behind" the other.  How could something be "the reality behind" itself?  I am in the same quandry when attempting to understand how two things could be "two sides of the same coin", while they are at the same time said to be "one and the same".  That would seem to make them "ONE side of the same coin" rather than "two"!  Please do not misunderstand me, I agree that there is a connection and a relationship between them. Theologically I do not see how they can be divided.  However, I must insist that there is a distinction between them which must be maintained.  Biblically, I must deny that this passage identifies and equates them as you have.

Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Scriptura,

John T. "Jack" Jeffery