Here is W.G.T. Shedd essentially saying (especially clear are the portions that I have underlined below) that the creature possesses at least some of the incommunicable attributes that make God who He is. To Shedd, the creation
shares some of the exact same Divine attributes which are, "in the strictest sense," ultimate
self-determination and ultimate self-causation. This is like a partial “I AM”
attributed to the creature, minus the self-existence part. Shedd attributes some of the qualities of a Being who IS self-existent to beings who are NOT self-existent.
God said that all which He created was "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Shedd (below) seems to think that God's active causation and control over His own creation would be inconsistent with such passages as Genesis 1:31 and James 1:17. God is immutably excellent and has immutably desired to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known (Romans 9:22). He has immutably and eternally desired to glorify Himself in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ (see Ephesians 3:11). God says through the apostle Paul that all things were created for the redemptive glory of Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:16).
Since God IS immutably excellent and does NOT change (James 1:17), then God is equally sovereign before, during, and after the fall of Adam. It is thus by a good and necessary inference that God ordained and caused Adam's fall so that He might be glorified in the Person and Work of His Son (Romans 9:22-24;1 Peter 1:17-20). Shedd ought to apply the fall of Adam and the origin of evil to Isaiah 10:5-15, and see that he (Shedd) is in league with the Assyrian king. The doctrinal fruit of Shedd's stout heart would have the Adamic axe glorifying itself over Him chopping with it (cf. Isaiah 10:12, 15).
"4. Development discriminated from Improvement.
Of equal importance is it, to discriminate the idea of a Development from that of an Improvement. The abstract definition of history merely describes it as an evolution, or movement from some germinal point, but does not determine whether the movement be upward, or downward; from good to better, or from bad to worse. This depends upon the nature of the potential base from which the expanding process issues. Within the sphere of material nature, the germ, being a pure creation of God, can exhibit only a healthy and normal development. But within the sphere of free-will, the original foundation, laid in creation, for a legitimate growth and progress, may be displaced, and a secondary one laid by the abuse of freedom. This has occurred in the apostacy of a part of the angelic host, and of the entire human race. By this revolutionary act, the first potential basis of human history, which provided for a purer progress, and a grander evolution than man can now conceive of, was displaced by a second basis, which likewise provided for a false development, and an awful history, if not supernaturally hindered, all along through the same endless duration. It must, however, be carefully observed, that the secondary foundation did not issue out of the primary one, by the method of development. Original righteousness was not unfolded into original sin. Sin was a new thing, originated de nihilo, by the finite will. It had no evil antecedents, and was in the strictest sense a creation of the creature. As it is impossible that the creature should originate any good thing de nihilo, since this is solely the Creator's prerogative, so it is impossible that the Creator should originate evil de nihilo, since this implies a mutable excellence, and a possibility of self-ruin. For the origin of moral evil cannot be accounted for, by the expansion of something already in existence, any more than the origin of matter itself can be. Original righteousness unfolded never so long, and intensely, will never be developed into original sin. The passage from one to the other must be by an absolutely originant act of self-will; which act, subject only to the limitation and condition above mentioned, of the permission of the Supreme Being, is strictly creative [sic] from nothing. The origin of sin is, thus, the origination of a new historic germ, and not the unfolding or modification of an old one; and hence the necessity of postulating a creating, in distinction from a merely developing energy -- such as is denoted by the possibilitas peccandi attributed by the theologian to the will of the unfallen Adam" (W.G.T. Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine, Volume One, pp. 15-17; underlining mine--CD).
