Indeed, rather I owed to my friend
@FenderTL5 for explained what my belief was in greater detail sparing me from having to do so myself.
No, for this reason - there are multiple interpretations possible of much of Scripture. The Orthodox Church has, only in a small number of cases, expressly determined what the correct interpretation is (or more often, what the correct interpretation is not). For example, those who read Matthew 28:19 and assume the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are modes, rather than distinct persons of the Holy Trinity, as did Sabellius in antiquity and the Oneness churches today, are, by our doctrine as expressed in the Nicene Creed as revised at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinple in 381, in error.
However, from Scripture we can say its possible that St. John the Beloved Disciple, for example, was a young teenager at the time of his discipleship (we know he was younger than his brother St. James the Great), and thus I hold to a private theologoumemnon that at the time of the Great and Holy Pascha in 33 AD where Christ our True God died on the Cross and rose again on the morning of the First Day in order to trample down death by death and remake us in His image, on those in the tombs bestowing life - a view which is doctrine, I have the theological opinion, from Scriptural inferences, that St. John could very well have been between the ages of 13 and 16 (16 if we say that he must have completed Bar Mitzvah before becoming a disciple of our Lord and if we say that the practice of Bar Mitzvah was at the time exactly that as it is now in contemporary Judaism, less than 16 if we relax that assumption).
The more widely held Theolougoumemon that the majority of the Apostles were young by our standards, in their late teens to mid twenties, is fairly common based on life expectancy at the time and the perilous nature of navigation on the Sea of Galilee.
In both cases we see a belief which is based on an interpretation of Scripture, where neither Scripture nor the early Church Fathers a definite answer on the correct interpretation, and thus formal dogmatic theology is silent, but nonetheless, there is enough implied in Scripture for the formation of a theological opinion.
Theological opinions would not be theological if they did not begin and end with Scripture, for all Orthodox beliefs, whether official doctrine or theologoumemna flow from Scripture, even those which pertain to events in the life of the Early Church recorded by the Fathers but not in Scripture itself, for example, the Dormition of the Theotokos, which is doctrine, and flows from Scripture, which clearly attests to the uniquely blessed nature of the Theotokos, her extreme holiness, her willingness to risk being stoned under false accusations of adultery had St. Joseph been less kindly and had he not been persuaded by the divine revelation he received, and her imperative instruction to all of us to do what Christ tells us to in the Water into Wine pericope in the Gospel According to John.
But in some cases, Scripture is unclear, and we lack an official doctrine. Indeed, in some cases it is so unclear as to be inscrutable - based on 2 Peter 1:20, this verse can, among other things, be read as meaning that in the case of prophetic Scripture, the answer is unknowable, and we know this to be the case regarding precise moment in time when Christ will return - so no Orthodox Christian would dare embarrass themselves by offering a theologoumemnon in which they presumed to calculate a date for His return; indeed doing so would be to us an indication that that member had fallen into prelest (which means spiritual delusion).
But in other cases, for example, the exact nature of Speaking in Tongues, there is enough information for a large number of Orthodox faithful, based on Scripture and the experience of the Church, to form a Theologoumemnon which is consistent with Scripture and flows organically from what is described in Scripture.