C.E.N.I. is a hermeneutic that the church of Christ denomination employs to analyze doctrines of the Bible. This group, along with others who teach baptismal remission theology, have demanded that lost Gentiles " be baptized for the remission of sins ". In this article, we will apply the C.E.N.I. hermeneutic to this particular doctrine to see if it supports this teaching that the church of Christ, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Catholic, and others seek to bind on all Gentiles today. The first in this acronym is "C" which means " command ". Q. Is a lost Gentile ever commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins in Scripture? It is notable that the church of Christ apologist will not go to Acts 2:38 when confronted with this question. Why? Because there was not one Gentile in the crowd that day. As a matter of fact, not one Gentile is found being added to the Church after Pentecost until after Acts chapter seven. Church of Christ remissionists insist that Mark 16:16 is a command when it isn't both contextually and grammatically. The command is in verse fifteen;" Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature ". Baptismal Remission theology fails on the " C" because no New Testament preacher can be found doing what church of Christ preachers are doing today; commanding lost Gentiles to " be baptized for the remission of sins ". The second letter in this hermeneutic acronym is " E " and means " example ". Q. Is there an example or " pattern " in the New Testament of A. a preacher commanding a lost Gentile to be baptized for the remission of sins or B. a lost Gentile following the command of a preacher to be baptized for the remission of sins ? A. No. Quite the contrary. In Acts 16:30-31, we have a lost Gentile asking a very direct question while obviously under conviction to two New Testament preachers, one of whom was Paul. The question was " sirs, what must I do to be saved?". Without hesitation, Paul answered " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house ". Why did Paul do something here that a church of Christ denomination preacher would never think of doing; leave out water baptism for the remission of sins? If Paul literally washed away his sins by water baptism ( Acts 22:16 ), then he surely would have demanded the same of another lost person seeking to become saved, thus " leading by example " and ensuring that the proper example, the means of Salvation ( water baptism ) continued to be faithfully employed. Why did Paul " leave out water baptism "? If we are looking for an " example " concerning lost Gentiles , then the Philippian jailor's conversion agrees with Paul's assertion that " for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel " ( 1 Cor. 1:17 ). Since Paul left water baptism out of the Salvific formula for this lost Gentile, and another formula that involves water baptism cannot be found to be imposed upon this group of people in Scripture , we can conclude that the doctrine of baptismal remission fails on the second letter. There is simply no example of "A" or "B" to be found anywhere. It does not exist. Lastly, let's look at the letters " N.I. ". They mean " necessary inference ", which means that something is " understood " to mean something while it does not necessarily clearly " define " what it means as written. We have two cases in the New Testament where it must be inferred that " lost Gentiles are commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins "; Acts 16:30-33 and Acts 10: 34-38. In both instances the expected and forthcoming command to " be baptized for the remission of sins " that is always asserted by church of Christ denomination preachers is nowhere to be found, ergo the " necessary inference " hermeneutic. Why do Baptismal Remissionists infer what the context of Scripture taken at face value ( literal interpretation ) never infers? Because the Scripture has to comply with a presupposed theology (baptismal remission ). When Paul commanded the Philippian jailor to " believe " to be saved, Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 did not exist to " run to " for reference. If Paul insisted that the jailor be baptized in order to be saved, and didn't in fact give him this information ( and he didn't ), then we have to conclude that the jailor " understood on his own ", without Paul ever telling him, that he was to " be baptized in water in order to contact the blood of Christ " i.e. " have his sins remitted ". The fact of the matter is that he understood and responded to the information given to him by Paul, which included " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ ", and excluded " be baptized for the remission of sins ". In the case of Cornelius, it is " inferred " that the fact that he was later baptized proves that he understood on his own that he was to follow a command that never proceeded from Peter's lips ;" be baptized for the remission of sins " in order to be saved, this in spite of the fact that he spake in tongues and glorified God. If Baptismal Remission theology is true, then a Gentile can 1. possess the Holy Spirit, 2. speak in tongues, and 3. magnify (glorify ) God and yet still be lost because they have not been water baptized. When it comes to water baptism " for remission of sins " being bound upon lost Gentiles, it is a " necessary " inference because the Scripture allowed to speak for Itself does not reach the same conclusion. The " necessary inference " is needed when the common sense of Scripture cannot be allowed to make common sense. The C.E.N.I. hermeneutic is a man-made interpretive method that filters Scripture through denominational theology. Baptismal remission theology is flawed, not because it fails the C.E.N.I. hermeneutic, but because it fails the Bible's hermeneutic; " rightly dividing the Word of Truth " ( 2Tim. 2:15 ).