In the past I was inclined to think that whatever is eternal is also necessary. Recently, however, I was reading something written by WLC pointing out the fallacy of this equation. He showed how something could be eternal, and yet not necessary. I just can’t remember where I read it, or what his argument was (I think it had something to do with the fact that something can be eternal, and yet contingent on some other eternal thing just like the depression in a pillow caused by an eternal ball resting on an eternal pillow is contingent on the ball’s resting on the pillow). Does anybody know where I can find this information? Does anyone have an argument they can offer me? Thanks!
There is a passing reference to this in Craig's article "A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity" about halfway through in a paragraph that starts "Anti-Social Trinitarians frequently ..."