"The Firstborn of all creation." “What then,” says one, “Lo, He is a creature.” Whence? tell me. "Because he said ‘Firstborn.’ " However, he said not “first created,” but “firstborn.” Then it is reasonable that he should be called many things. For he must also be called a brother “in all things.” (Heb. ii. 17.) And we must take from Him His being Creator; and insist that neither in dignity nor in any other thing is He superior to us? And who that has understanding would say this? For the word “firstborn” is not expressive of dignity and honor, nor of anything else, but of time only. What does “the firstborn” signify? That he is created, is the answer. Well. If then this be so, it has also kindred expressions. But otherwise the firstborn is of the same essence with those of whom he is firstborn. Therefore he will be the firstborn son of all things—for it said “of every creature”; therefore of stones also, and of me, is God the Word firstborn. But again, of what, tell me, are the words “firstborn from the dead” .) declaratory? Not that He first rose; for he said not simply, “of the dead,” but “firstborn from the dead,” nor yet, “that He died first,” but that He rose the firstborn from the dead. So that they declare nothing else than this, that He is the Firstfruits of the Resurrection. Surely then neither in the place before us. Next he proceeds to the doctrine itself. For that they may not think Him to be of more recent existence, because that in former times the approach was through Angels, but now through Him; he shows first, that they had no power (for else it had not been “out of darkness” “For in Him,” he says, “were all things created.” What say here the followers of Paul of Samosata? “The things in the heavens.” What was in question, he has placed first; “and the things upon the earth.” Then he says, “the visible and the invisible things”; invisible, such as soul, and all that has come to exist in heaven; visible, such as men, sun, sky. “Whether thrones.” And what is granted, he lets alone, but what is doubted he asserts. “Whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers.” The words “whether,” “or,” comprehend the whole of things; but by means of the greater things show it of the less also. But the Spirit is not amongst the “powers.” “All things,” he says, “have been created through Him, and unto Him.” Lo, “in Him,” is “through Him,” for having said “in Him,” he added, “through Him.” But what “unto Him”? It is this; the subsistence of all things depends on Him. Not only did He Himself bring them out of nothing into being, but Himself sustains them now, so that were they dissevered from His Providence, they were at once undone and destroyed. But He said not, “He continues them,” which had been a grosser way of speaking, but what is more subtle, that “on” Him they depend. To have only a bearing on Him is enough to continue anything and bind it fast. So also the word “firstborn,” in the sense of a foundation. But this does not show the creatures to be consubstantial with Him; but that all things are through Him, and in Him are upheld. Since Paul also when he says elsewhere, “I have laid a foundation” (1 Cor. iii. 10.), is speaking not concerning substance, but operation. For, that you may not think Him to be a minister, he says that He continues them, which is not less than making them. Certainly, with us it is greater even: for to the former, art conducts us; but to the latter, not so, it does not even stay a thing in decay.
I wonder if Steve is actually reading my posts.
One can only beget one that is of the same nature as oneself. Hence Jesus must share the same divine nature as the Father.