On the "Mormon Dialogue" Web forums, I came across a comment by a Latter-day Saint poster who has a strong fundamentalist (lower-case "f") mindset, and is very strongly anti-intellectual. In the thread, he wrote the following:
Merely using exegesis contradicts the Bible. (2 Peter 1:19-21) (source)
Does this pericope contradict the use of exegesis? Let us first quote this pericope:
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in our hearts. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
I acknowledge that this pericope is often cited by critics of sola scriptura, and while I am strongly critical of this doctrine, I don’t believe it is exegetically tenable to use this particular pericope against this practice. Indeed, while some believe that this passage is against such an epistemology, and some, such as the very errant LDS poster quoted above, against one engaging in exegesis on their own, this is not the meaning of the text; instead, it is about the origins of divine revelation—that is, Scripture does not originate from the oracle, but from God (i.e., Scripture is inspired by God and has God as its source, not the imaginations of man).
As one recent scholarly commentary put it:
The pronouncements about the character of prophecy seem, at first glance at least, to have two edges. Many readers understand the reference to the interpretation of prophecy not being of “one’s own interpretation” (1:20) as referring to interpretation done by later readers and hearers of the prophecy. However, the very next verse (1:21) argues that prophets do not speak out of their own will but from God through the Holy Spirit. The awkwardness of such a shift in topic leads other readers to conclude that 1:20 is speaking about the interpretive role of prophets in their own prophecies . . .[20-21] It is possible to render the Greek as “no prophecy of scripture belongs to one’s own interpretation.” The lack of clear antecedent to “one’s own” permits reading the text as referring to how people interpret ancient OT prophecies. Consequently, this verse is often read as an attempt to limit heterodox reading of Scripture. However, this reading separates the verse from the verses surrounding it and introduces a sudden and unnecessary change in topic.
The Greek also translates as “no prophecy of scripture happens from one’s own interpretation,” with the antecedent of “one’s own” being the prophet. This makes perfect sense in context. The credibility of the prophecy, as reinforced in the account of the transfiguration and in the affirmation in 1:19, receives further support. In the Mediterranean world, prophets were regularly understood as having to interpret the revelation that came to them. This verse denies that the prophecies contained in Scripture are the result of the interpretive process of the prophets.
The opening denial in 1:21 clarifies the meaning of 1:20. Prophecy is not “carried by the will of a person.” This is not a denial that humans are involved; it is, instead, a clarification of their role. Humans do not “carry” the prophecy. Instead, prophecy occurs when “people” are “carried by the Holy Spirit.” In repetition of the term “carry,” this account parallels the account of the transfiguration in 1:17-18 where a voice is both “carried” to Jesus “by the majestic glory” and “carried from heaven” so that the eyewitnesses could hear it. Putting all this together, a rather full account of the prophetic event can be constructed. A heavenly voice is carried from heaven to Jesus, to eyewitnesses, and perhaps to all prophets by means of the heavenly glory. These people are themselves carried by the Holy Spirit. When all the carrying is thus ordered, people speak “from God.”
The ancient world was filled with debates about prophecies. There was certainly no agreed-upon account. Prophets were accused of all kinds of deceit. Prophecies were often ridiculed. Nonetheless, prophecy had a powerful role throughout the Greco-Roman world. The OT itself is frequented by accounts of false prophets. In agreement with 2 Peter, the common image of false prophets is as people who speak “the deceit of their own minds” (Jer 14:14; see also Jer 23:16; Ezek 13:3). Second Peter itself will move from this defense of prophecy to a prediction of false prophets (2:1) and an attack on them. In any case, the general cast of this defense would probably have given it credence among both Jews and Greeks. (Lewis R. Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude [New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2010], 229, 234-35)
However, I will note that strong anti-intellectualism and an anti-scholarly attitude does permeate much of Evangelical apologetics; while looking up Evangelical discussions of this pericope, I came across this passage from one apologist who basically states that only those who hold to his (conservative, Reformed Evangelical) understanding of the Bible can engage in exegesis and should be accepted as reliable exegetes (though in the same book, he was happy to cite liberals and others who did not share his view when they disagreed with the Catholic apologists he was critiquing!):
[Ernest] Käsemann is a liberal Protestant scholar . . .Käsemann errs on his assessment of who wrote 2 Peter . . .[Is it] likely then . . . that Käsemann will be more accurate when he interprets Scripture? (Eric D. Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists [Lindenhurst, N.Y.: Reformation Press, 1999], 48)
Daniel McClellan, in his interaction with James R. White (a friend and associate of Svendsen’s [White wrote and endorsement of this book and Svendsen’s 2001 volume Who is My Mother?]) on the issue of “liberal” scholarship and higher criticism here.