Lines and conics have clear geometric meanings that are coordinate-free, but cubics seem to rely entirely on cubic equations and coordinate systems. Are there ways to define cubic curves without cubic equations?
I thought about this question by trying to generalize tangent lines and osculating circles. Since a tangent line is defined by taking the limit of two points on the curve, and an osculating circle is defined by taking the limit of two tangent lines on the curve, I thought about taking the limit of two osculating circles on the curve, but after playing around with evolutes and involutes, I couldn't come up with anything.
I'm not entirely clear on what's meant by the phrase
Whether or not a curve is a line is not intrinsic to that curve; it depends on the embedding, and hence on the coordinate system. In the context of algebraic geometry, lines and circles are isomorphic to one another, and you can't talk about a circle as being "the set of all points $r$ units from some point $P$" because there's no such thing as distance.
That said, given that lines satisfy your criteria, you should also agree that cubic curves do, because a plane cubic is simply a plane curve that intersects all but finitely many lines in the plane in exactly three points.