My OP is not meant to read as (2) premises, and then a conclusion.
You may not have intended it to be considered as premises and conclusion, but any assertion that tries to make an argument-i.e. any assertion in support of a conclusion(s)-is subject to analysis as a premise or a conclusion (depending on the context). I stand by my analysis, but we can set it to the side.
1. Belief appears neither a 'moral' or 'immoral' concept. 2. Nor, is belief a choice. Thus, God's fix is based upon two conditions completely absent of any moral application. (i.e.):
I agree with (2), in the sense that mere belief is not a choice. We believe whatever "strikes" us as true, and likewise with what we don't believe. But, I don't hold that belief is identical to faith. Faith often includes belief. But, faith always includes trust. It is one thing to believe God exists. It is another thing to trust God as Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer. At any rate, belief and faith are related but not identical.
I will disagree with (1). Belief can be moral. The fact that I believe Billie Holliday is the greatest jazz singer of all time may have no moral importance. That is my preference, and nothing really stands or falls on account of it. But, imagine a scenario where someone truly believes something is evil, when in fact it is good. Not only is that belief moral by nature of its content, but it is the kind of belief that informs moral action.
Some beliefs inform what we do, morally. Believing the truth is a lie, is a moral act. There is a responsibility that comes with belief. And it is a moral responsibility. So, the general statement that belief is not a moral concept is up for debate.
You cannot control what you believe, without 'just cause'
If I understand you here, I agree. Again, I agree that we can't simply change our beliefs on a whim. We have to have reasons for changing beliefs. That I agree with. But, we can influence the beliefs we encounter, how we encounter them, what we investigate and what we neglect to investigate, and so on. We can put ourselves in a position to believe (or disbelieve) any given proposition or belief. Some beliefs aren't going to give way as easy as others might. My belief that I don't have two right hands is pretty solid and is likely to remain that way. Religious and philosophical beliefs are somewhat more malleable, but they still have their pull.
If I'm somehow w/o 'sin', but do not believe in the existence of a resurrected Jesus, it is not possible to enter heaven.
If I commit 'sin', but believe in a resurrected Jesus, it is still possible to enter heaven.
As a whole, I believe this is an interesting logical argument. If one assumes your premises, then the argument has some appeal. Here is your initial argument (broken into two arguments for easy analysis) as quoted above.
Argument A:
1. S is sinless.
2. S does not believe in the resurrection.
Conclusion: It is not possible for S to enter heaven.
Argument B:
1. S is not-sinless (i.e. S sins)
2. S does believe in the resurrection.
Conclusion: It is possible to enter heaven
With the appropriate qualifications I would say Argument B is the gospel. It is possible for humans who sin and yet believe in the resurrection to enter heaven. With qualification, I would say that's basically the gospel. The main qualification I make is how we are understanding "believe." I tried to show above, faith is not just a cognitive assent, like mere belief. Faith is a transformative trust that has ontological consequences. Moreover, faith is moral in the strongest possible sense because it is a matter of life and death.
Concerning argument A: I stand by my previous observation that the compatability of premises 1 and 2 is questionable. If the sin condition is an ontological condition, then an extraordinary event has to happen to change it. If sin were simply a matter of choosing right from wrong, then something like the incarnation, coupled with death and resurrection, seems a bit overkill.
And this is my basic critique of your whole argument. It has some logical interest, but only because it takes a flattened view of reality, morality, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't say that to be mean, it just is. The Christain view is more robust than simply choosing between right and wrong.
3. Is this how God's 'justice' works?
I wouldn't say that is how God's justice works. Here is how I see God's justice. God created life, so that life would flourish in the divine presence. The goal of God's justice is always life. Justice succeeds when flourishing life happens. Sin is destructive by nature. Sin succeeds when it destroys. Ultimately, sin is destructive of the life God created for the divine presence. And yet, people love sin. God's creatures love evil. What is God supposed to do with that?
The consequences of sin is death. Should God simply let his creation and it's creatures be destroyed? It would be just if God let humans destroy themselves with the sin they so love. That would be God allowing the consequences to naturally follow the cause. But, that isn't what God does. Instead, God, in the Person of the Son, takes the destructive destiny of sin upon God's own Self. That's divine justice, which oddly enough looks like mercy.
I think you have skipped a lot of revealed truth to get to that place where you start worrying about who's going to heaven and who isn't. If you argument is simply a logical exercise, then I commend you. It's pretty good. If your OP is more in reference to your own experience and the beliefs you hold, I recommend prayerful study. And, keep in mind, the one who is to be our judge is the same one who gave his life for us.
