One another thread, Siluan mentioned something about how a bad tree cannot give good fruit. I often hear this as a reason why the MP isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
On another thread, OOD brought up the fact that while we may not agree with everything that Origen and Tertullian thought, we can certainly agree with some things.
Since Origen and Tertullian are, in effect, "bad trees" because of the heresy they espoused, especially Tertullian who should have known better, how can we hold them up as Fathers of the Church, even though they did bear "good fruit" on certain theological points?
I guess I'm just seeing some bit of inconsistency here, that's all. I'm not trying to start an argument, either, I'm just curious.