Nominalism, Protestants, and Rockin Apologist

CA over at Rockin Apologist has been discussing Nominalism, the philosophy that universals stem from particulars.  To summarize using CA's analogy: for the Nominalist, the concept of "greenness" exists only because something is green.  This is in contrast to the Realist, who holds that something is green only because the concept of "greenness" exists independently of other other things.  For the Realist, particulars are compared to the Universal, for Nominalists, universals are compared to the Particulars.

I've got some reflections on this, most, though, on CA's posts. 

1)  In both posts, CA presents the logic pattern behind typical Protestant thinking.  Indeed, upon reflection, nominalism lends itself to relativism.  Think about it: if Universals don't exist independent of particulars, but because of particulars, then anything goes.  How is this?  Well, consider the common Protestant reaction to beliefs different from theirs: "well that's not what I believe, but if it makes you happy, than I'm fine with it."  (To be perfectly fair, a good number of Catholics respond the same way, but then again, we live in a Protestant-based culture, so this makes sense.)  The typical Protestant concept of the Church Universal is based off of the various different sects of people all professing belief in Christ.  In this construct, the Church is a catch-all phrase by which to note all sincere Christians.  The construct is based of the fact, as Protestants see it, that there are tons of different groups of people all claiming to follow Christ, yet adhering to different Creeds, and worshipping in profoundly different ways.  In addition, there are different expressions of sexual love, so the concept of Love should be based on those different expressions.  This continues ad infitum.

2) The Nominalist arguments that CA presents for sola Scriptura and the Protestant view of the Cross may be logically sound, given their Nominal perspective, but are based on a false premises.  For example, in the Nominalist view of the Cross, presented by CA, the Cross is the Particular, and the universal is set in relation to that particular.  However, such a premise neglects the co-eternal nature of Christ, True God and True Man, consubstantial with the Father.  "Eternal" indicates that Christ exists outside of time and space, and as a result existed before and after the event of the Cross took place. Thus, to assume that the Cross explains Christ, and is "once for all" neglects the obvious fact that Christ existed before the Cross.  The Universal of Christ existed before the particular of the Cross.  The same is true for Scripture and Tradition.  By treating the Particular of Scripture as dominant over the universal of Tradition, the arguer is assuming falsely that Scripture preceded Tradition.  Scripture clearly tells us all over that the Apostles taught first, and only later did anything get written down.  For example, Paul is writing to the Romans...after he went there and taught there. The same is true for the Corinthians, Galatians, etc.  Even the Gospels were written AFTER the Apostles had been teaching for awhile.  Scripture itself attests that not EVERYTHING the Apostles said or did was written down.  Thus, it is more rational to assume that the Universal of Tradition exists separately and preceded the particular of Scripture.  In both cases, the Cross and Scripture, however, it CANNOT be understated that the particulars can only be understood by the Universals which brought them forth.