Did the messengers who wrote scripture preach the gospel

with clarity?

The "Iglesia Ni Cristo" teaches that one cannot understand the Bible
without a messenger who is properly ordained to explain God's truth.
From the INC's perspective, were the messengers that we read about
in the Bible able to preach God's truth with clarity?

When we examine the INC's position as well as scripture itself, we see

that the logical conclusion of the INC's position is that the Biblical
messengers were not able to preach the gospel with clarity and that
they were not sufficient messengers. To be clear, the INC would not
say this directly, but in their teaching, they deny the ministerial
authority of the biblical messengers.

According to the INC, the Old Testament

messengers were sufficient messengers.
Let us take the example of David, who wrote many of the Psalms. The
INC claims that David is a messenger of God. However, they also teach
that we cannot understand the things he wrote. They make David to be
a failed messenger.

According to the INC, the New Testament

messengers were sufficient messengers.
If David's words were not good enough to explain himself, then that
means we need another messenger to explain David. In Hebrews 3-4
we receive two chapters dedicated to explaining Psalm 95. The INC
claims that the author of Hebrews is a messenger from God, but that
his explanation of Psalm 95 cannot be understood without the help of a
third messenger. The INC claims we need a messenger (INC minister)
to explain a messenger (author of Hebrews) explaining a messenger
(David)!
Culture doesn't fix the problem.
The INC might argue that the difference is that we are removed in time
and place from the original writings of the Bible and so we need a
messenger who speaks as we do, but this does not fix the problem.
The Bible gives us no such reasoning. Additionally, the Bible has been
translated into modern languages so that we can understand it.
Cultural references do not utterly dominate the scriptures and when
they appear, they typically provide their own explanation.

How could the INC possibly draw a line on cultural differences? A

members culture is not the exact same as his ministers, and another
may have an even more different culture, yet the INC does not say that
this prevents a minister from preaching the gospel. At what point does
a culture become so different that we need a new messenger to
explain what the first one said? The INC has not bothered drawing any
such line, and the reason is likely because they cannot.

Interaction doesn't fix the problem.

The INC might argue that we need a minister who can interact with us
and answer questions, but this does not match what we see in the
Bible. Many believed after hearing the message of the apostles without
asking any questions.

Presence doesn't fix the problem.

The INC might argue that we need a minister who is present with us in
order to explain the Bible. Not only is this a very arbitrary and non-
biblical requirement, it also means that the apostles who
communicated by writing were not able to successfully communicate
with those who read their letters.

Conclusion
The INC's position on scripture taken to its logical conclusion denies
the authority of the authors of scripture as well as the sufficiency of
scripture. If they were truly messengers, they should be able to explain
the word of God to us.
Instead of denying the authority and sufficiency of the word of God
itself, let us read it, being like the Bereans.

Acts 17:10-11 (ESV) - 10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas
away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the
Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in
Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining
the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Credits to trueiglesia.org