I am often amazed by how many people base and argue for their doctrines based on philosophy rather than the scripture. Far too many Christians say silly things like if their doctrine is wrong, God is stupid, or immoral etc. As if, in the event they are wrong (which they often tend to be), they would actually be willing to stand before God and tell Him "I think it would have been better if you'd done it this way..."
As you've probably noticed, I deal with Old Earth heresies quite a lot. Evolution is the religion I was saved out of, Old Earth Creationism (even Theistic Evolution to an extent) was my first compromise, and frankly, as a high functioning autistic, I find it hard to focus on anything not directly related to plants and animals. Anything else you see on this ministry is the result of rigorous research, requiring extreme amounts of self discipline. In the course of these discussions, I will often say that, if God did create via Evolution, He is a terrible God.
Now, this line of reasoning causes me to cringe every time. I make the argument because I believe it is true, yet at the same time, I am still talking about God here. I have to remind myself that God Himself declares that death is an enemy, and gives account for how it entered the world. I am able to justify saying this only because I know beyond all reasonable doubt that the God we have would not, and arguably could not use such a brutal process of endless death and suffering, then call the end result, which still involves such brutality, "very good". You may as well tell me when the Lord claims to be the Good Shepherd, that means we're basically mutton.
But then you come to the question of whether or not Christ could have sinned. There are two possibilities here. Either the answer is yes, and He just chose not to, or the answer is no, which is why He was able to complete His mission. People on both sides of this debate are often willing to say that God has some kind of flaw if they are wrong. The person who inspired this article, for example, said that if Christ could not have sinned, that means the cross is meaningless.
Now, I want you to imagine this man died and stood before God. I also want you to imagine, hypothetically, he's wrong. I personally believe he is, but we'll deal with that in a moment. Just imagine he is. What do you think would happen if he got to Heaven, found that out, then said "well then the cross is meaningless"? It seems obvious that this guy's hope is in the wrong place. He's not focusing on the cross itself, whereon the innocent died on behalf of the guilty, but rather, on the possibility that Jesus could have sinned. Of course, he likely did not mean that. We all say silly things when we encounter disagreements. But where I cited scripture to show that, for example, the Son of Man can do nothing except His Father's will (John 5:19-20), he cited an opinion: if Jesus could not have failed, His success is cheapened.
Compare that with my view. What would my "If I'm wrong, then" be? Well, based on the others who agreed with my view, it would probably be something about God's Holiness, or lack thereof. Could Christ have sinned? Suppose He could, and I died believing He couldn't, and found out I was wrong. Can you imagine me saying "then Jesus wasn't fully God!" or "then He was immoral"? Hopefully, no one could imagine that, because I would never say that. I account for the possibility that Jesus could, theoretically, have sinned. I just don't think it's even remotely scriptural. If I'm wrong, I don't care, because at the end of the day, He did not sin.
As Christians, we need to be very careful how we apply "if I'm wrong" logic. At the end of the day, we are dealing with a Holy God, whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and whose ways are higher than our ways. Therefore, if we are going to make any assertions about the philosophical implications of us being in error, we should make absolutely sure we are being Biblical about it. Take Paul as an example. He did get into the philosophical implications of Christ failing to rise: "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty." (1 Corinthians 15:14). Yet, note, this he did, first, under divine inspiration (and nothing from the mouth of God can be considered foolish), but more importantly for us, in accordance with the rest of scripture.
In effect, if we must make a claim about God, let us first be 100% sure it is true, and then only if we can establish this can we make a claim about what God would be like if He was any other way. I cannot say God would be unholy if Christ could have sinned because, first of all, I can only defend that He couldn't have sinned to a certain extent, and second, theoretically, He could have chosen the alternative. The fact is, whether Christ could have sinned or not is irrelevant: He didn't sin. We can't say He would have been unholy if He could have sinned, because in the end, He did not. Likewise, we cannot say the cross would have been meaningless if He could not have sinned, because in the end, the cross is about the innocent being punished for the guilty. It required an innocent sacrifice, it did not depend on that sacrifice being potentially guilty.
As in all things, let us be wise in everything we say. The Lord says we will give account for every idle word (Matthew 12:36), therefore let our words cease to be idle! Let us show the Lord just how much the cross does mean to us.