Why do so many oppose imputed righteousness?

[Stranger]

Okay, for the sake of continuing on, I will concede Matthew 5:6 and Romans 5:19.

In the hopes that you will now expound for me 1 John 3:7 in light of Matthew 5:6 and Romans 5:19.

Because of course you have still not answered these verses adequately to be able to defend your position that righteousness is imputed only.

The question remains from above; which I will post again below.

What a forked tongue. You will concede (Matt. 5:6) and (Rom. 5;19). You then say I have not been able to defend my position and have not answered the verses adequately.

I have showed you through (Rom. 5:19) and (Matt. 5:6) that you use these verses wrongfully. Thus two pillars of your legalistic doctrine have crumbled.

And you still haven't answered my question. Is the Sermon on the Mount nothing but Law?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

@Stranger,

And Romans 5:19 and 1 John 3:7 are to be taken together (while I still expect you to deal with 1 John 3:7 as the third of three verses that I have been giving to you to contemplate). In Romans 5:19, through the obedience of one many are made righteous. This is not only a declaration of righteousness without an actual righteousness being present in the person's life.

For even with the concept that we are declared righteous apart from actually being righteous, you must deal with the concept that it is impossible for God to lie (a biblical concept, see Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2). And since this is the case, if God says someone is righteous, they are actually righteous. (He calls those things which be not as though they are (Romans 4:17) thus creating the reality of the thing that He has now declared).

It all comes down to what you think actual righteousness is. Is it practical and is it relevant? Does it work itself out in our behaviour? Or, is God telling a giant fib in saying that the person is righteous when in all reality he continues to be the worst of sinners in the practical sense?

In 1 John 3:7,

1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Please expound upon this verse word by word, and explain to me how you think this is speaking of mere imputed righteousness in light of the word in the middle, "doeth".

Because I believe that it defines a righteous person as someone who lives out righteousness in a practical way.

I think that in order to come up with the concept that this verse is speaking of mere imputed righteousness, you may indeed have to change or pervert the verse itself. Perhaps the original Greek renders it differently?

Little children, let no man deceive you.

Nice speech. Is the Sermon on the Mount nothing but Law?

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

I just showed you. (Josh. 8:34)

You like to 'beg to differ'. You like to 'contend'. But you never have any basis. Scripture is against you.

So, because you base your 'no' on the wrong assumption, your 'no' is an invalid answer. Again, is the Sermon on the Mount nothing but Law?

Please answer.

Stranger

The verse in question (which you failed to reference in such a way as to gain easy access through the program) says that indeed, blessings come from obedience to the law, and cursings from disobedience.

I would hardly call that a promise.

It's funny how these upstarts tell experienced Bible teachers that the scripture is against them, when not only are we proclaiming our doctrine via scripture, but also the position of those who are against us is not supported by scripture.

It is what Jesus said:

Mat 7:4, Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I think that perhaps I ought to obey what Jesus says in the very next verse and stop giving what is holy to dogs.

I am not calling you a dog or swine per se, @Stranger, but only if the shoe fits, in that you trample over my pearls and turn and attempt to rend me in pieces. I don't think that you have gone the whole way with that yet. As far as I know you have not attacked me personally (but then, I tend to be somewhat oblivious to things like that). But you have trampled over the treasure that I am setting before you, as though it were not valuable.

But in answer to your question, the Sermon on the Mount is not "nothing but law". For it contains promise (see also Matthew 7:7-8).

Now I have answered your question perhaps three times or more. When are you going to get around to answering mine?

I will post it again below.

 

[justbyfaith]

@Stranger,

And Romans 5:19 and 1 John 3:7 are to be taken together (while I still expect you to deal with 1 John 3:7 as the third of three verses that I have been giving to you to contemplate). In Romans 5:19, through the obedience of one many are made righteous. This is not only a declaration of righteousness without an actual righteousness being present in the person's life.

For even with the concept that we are declared righteous apart from actually being righteous, you must deal with the concept that it is impossible for God to lie (a biblical concept, see Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2). And since this is the case, if God says someone is righteous, they are actually righteous. (He calls those things which be not as though they are (Romans 4:17) thus creating the reality of the thing that He has now declared).

It all comes down to what you think actual righteousness is. Is it practical and is it relevant? Does it work itself out in our behaviour? Or, is God telling a giant fib in saying that the person is righteous when in all reality he continues to be the worst of sinners in the practical sense?

In 1 John 3:7,

1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Please expound upon this verse word by word, and explain to me how you think this is speaking of mere imputed righteousness in light of the word in the middle, "doeth".

Because I believe that it defines a righteous person as someone who lives out righteousness in a practical way.

I think that in order to come up with the concept that this verse is speaking of mere imputed righteousness, you may indeed have to change or pervert the verse itself. Perhaps the original Greek renders it differently?

Little children, let no man deceive you.

 

[justbyfaith]

Nice speech. Is the Sermon on the Mount nothing but Law?

Stranger

I was not looking for a compliment; but an answer.

I think that you have been beating around the bush.

 

[Stranger]

The verse in question (which you failed to reference in such a way as to gain easy access through the program) says that indeed, blessings come from obedience to the law, and cursings from disobedience.

I would hardly call that a promise.

It's funny how these upstarts tell experienced Bible teachers that the scripture is against them, when not only are we proclaiming our doctrine via scripture, but also the position of those who are against us is not supported by scripture.

It is what Jesus said:

Mat 7:4, Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I think that perhaps I ought to obey what Jesus says in the very next verse and stop giving what is holy to dogs.

I am not calling you a dog or swine per se, @Stranger, but only if the shoe fits, in that you trample over my pearls and turn and attempt to rend me in pieces. I don't think that you have gone the whole way with that yet. As far as I know you have not attacked me personally (but then, I tend to be somewhat oblivious to things like that). But you have trampled over the treasure that I am setting before you, as though it were not valuable.

But in answer to your question, the Sermon on the Mount is not "nothing but law". For it contains promise (see also Matthew 7:7-8).

Now I have answered your question perhaps three times or more. When are you going to get around to answering mine?

I will post it again below.

Just because a promise is attached does not mean it isn't law. As I showed you in (Josh 8:34) "And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings...."

But here are more. (Ex. 19:5) The law---"if ye will obey my voice" The promise---"then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me"
(Deut. 5:32-33) The law---"Ye shall observe to do therefore" The promise---"that ye may live and that it may be well with you, that ye may prolong your days in the land"

You cannot base your answer on a promise being found in the Sermon on the Mount. There are promises with law. So my question is still before you. But in light of your blind assertion that the Sermon is not law because promises are attatched, it brings up another question.

So, do you agree that there are promises attached to the law, as I have showed?

Then, is the Sermon on the Mount nothing but law?

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

So, do you agree that there are promises attached to the law, as I have showed?

Yes, there are promises attached to the law; but the promises themselves are not law.

Then, is the Sermon on the Mount nothing but law?

Nope; for the promises in the Sermon on the Mount are not law, but promise.

 

[Stranger]

Yes, there are promises attached to the law; but the promises themselves are not law.



Nope; for the promises in the Sermon on the Mount are not law, but promise.

What a foolish answer.

The promises make up the statement of law. They are not separate from the law. The blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience all are part of the Law. They are not separate from the Law. (Ex. 19:5), "If ye will obey my voice, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto me."

(Deut. 31:24) "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished."

Did you catch that? "the words of this law". All of the Mosaic Law is law. Just as all of the Sermon on the Mount is law.

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

The promises make up the statement of law. They are not separate from the law. The blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience all are part of the Law. They are not separate from the Law. (Ex. 19:5), "If ye will obey my voice, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto me."

Well, I guess then that all of the NT proclaims a law; and that the promises contained within the NT are law and not promise.

You know, there are those that teach that Jesus came primarily to change the law; and that the NT is the result.

And while I don't agree with that premise, it would seem that it is substantiated by such verses as Hebrews 7:12.

Do you have an answer?

It also seems that you are continuing to beat around the bush concerning the question that I have asked of you at least four times already. Do I need to post it again?

What a foolish answer.

And you are so wise!

In saying this, you are one step away from calling me a fool; and Jesus taught that those who do such things are in danger of hell fire.

But you are not under the law; and so Jesus' statements of judgment concerning such things as this do not apply to you...

After all, we do not become new creatures in Christ when we are redeemed...and therefore we can violate Jesus' standard of judgment without consequences.

 

[justbyfaith]

It also seems that you are continuing to beat around the bush concerning the question that I have asked of you at least four times already. Do I need to post it again?

I probably do.

@Stranger,

And Romans 5:19 and 1 John 3:7 are to be taken together (while I still expect you to deal with 1 John 3:7 as the third of three verses that I have been giving to you to contemplate). In Romans 5:19, through the obedience of one many are made righteous. This is not only a declaration of righteousness without an actual righteousness being present in the person's life.

For even with the concept that we are declared righteous apart from actually being righteous, you must deal with the concept that it is impossible for God to lie (a biblical concept, see Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2). And since this is the case, if God says someone is righteous, they are actually righteous. (He calls those things which be not as though they are (Romans 4:17) thus creating the reality of the thing that He has now declared).

It all comes down to what you think actual righteousness is. Is it practical and is it relevant? Does it work itself out in our behaviour? Or, is God telling a giant fib in saying that the person is righteous when in all reality he continues to be the worst of sinners in the practical sense?

In 1 John 3:7,

1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Please expound upon this verse word by word, and explain to me how you think this is speaking of mere imputed righteousness in light of the word in the middle, "doeth".

Because I believe that it defines a righteous person as someone who lives out righteousness in a practical way.

I think that in order to come up with the concept that this verse is speaking of mere imputed righteousness, you may indeed have to change or pervert the verse itself. Perhaps the original Greek renders it differently?

Little children, let no man deceive you.

 

[Stranger]

Well, I guess then that all of the NT proclaims a law; and that the promises contained within the NT are law and not promise.

You know, there are those that teach that Jesus came primarily to change the law; and that the NT is the result.

And while I don't agree with that premise, it would seem that it is substantiated by such verses as Hebrews 7:12.

Do you have an answer?

It also seems that you are continuing to beat around the bush concerning the question that I have asked of you at least four times already. Do I need to post it again?



And you are so wise!

In saying this, you are one step away from calling me a fool; and Jesus taught that those who do such things are in danger of hell fire.

But you are not under the law; and so Jesus' statements of judgment concerning such things as this do not apply to you...

After all, we do not become new creatures in Christ when we are redeemed...and therefore we can violate Jesus' standard of judgment without consequences.

Your refusal to admit that the Sermon on the Mount is all law, has led you to the place where you now deny the Mosaic Law is all law. And has revealed that you will take it so far as to say the believer under the New Testament is under law. Which is what you actually believe anyway.

When I said 'foolish' I was being kind.

Until you admit the Law of Moses is all Law, no need to answer the other questions. It alone is proof enough. So, is the law of Moses all Law?

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

It is clear that you simply cannot answer the questions that I have laid before you.

Requiring that I agree with your understanding before you will move on to the next phase is simply a smokescreen.

Because you cannot answer my questions and statements concerning 1 John 3:7; and therefore you refuse to answer them until I would agree with your other statements.

What kind of debating tactic is that? coercion? "I will not continue the debate until you agree with me"

It is laughable, indeed!

But I will lay forth my questions to you once again (below), to show forth the logic yet another time that you are unable to defeat.

 

[justbyfaith]

@Stranger,

And Romans 5:19 and 1 John 3:7 are to be taken together (while I still expect you to deal with 1 John 3:7 as the third of three verses that I have been giving to you to contemplate). In Romans 5:19, through the obedience of one many are made righteous. This is not only a declaration of righteousness without an actual righteousness being present in the person's life.

For even with the concept that we are declared righteous apart from actually being righteous, you must deal with the concept that it is impossible for God to lie (a biblical concept, see Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2). And since this is the case, if God says someone is righteous, they are actually righteous. (He calls those things which be not as though they are (Romans 4:17) thus creating the reality of the thing that He has now declared).

It all comes down to what you think actual righteousness is. Is it practical and is it relevant? Does it work itself out in our behaviour? Or, is God telling a giant fib in saying that the person is righteous when in all reality he continues to be the worst of sinners in the practical sense?

In 1 John 3:7,

1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Please expound upon this verse word by word, and explain to me how you think this is speaking of mere imputed righteousness in light of the word in the middle, "doeth".

Because I believe that it defines a righteous person as someone who lives out righteousness in a practical way.

I think that in order to come up with the concept that this verse is speaking of mere imputed righteousness, you may indeed have to change or pervert the verse itself. Perhaps the original Greek renders it differently?

Little children, let no man deceive you.

 

[justbyfaith]

1Jo 3:10, In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

 

[Stranger]

It is clear that you simply cannot answer the questions that I have laid before you.

Requiring that I agree with your understanding before you will move on to the next phase is simply a smokescreen.

Because you cannot answer my questions and statements concerning 1 John 3:7; and therefore you refuse to answer them until I would agree with your other statements.

What kind of debating tactic is that? coercion? "I will not continue the debate until you agree with me"

It is laughable, indeed!

But I will lay forth my questions to you once again (below), to show forth the logic yet another time that you are unable to defeat.

Because you believe the Law of Moses is not all Law, there is no reason to pursue this any more. You have forced yourself into a corner you cannot get out of. You must say the Law of Moses is not all Law because you use law and legalism against the believer. Because what you are saying is so identified with Law, you cannot agree that the Mosaic Law is all law. You would rather create law under grace then admit that the Law of Moses is all law.

Thus falls your second pillar, (Matt. 5:6). The Sermon on the Mount is all Law. The Law of the Kingdom. The righteousness desired is righteousness under law. This is the righteousness produced by man in his walk with God. It is not imputed righteousness at all. It will be a possibility during the Millennial reign of Christ, as satan is cast in prison, and Christ is ruling in righteousness over the whole earth.

Can the Christian today desire to have this righteousness displayed in his walk? Of course. But it is still his righteousness. It is not the righteousness imputed to him.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

@Stranger,

And Romans 5:19 and 1 John 3:7 are to be taken together (while I still expect you to deal with 1 John 3:7 as the third of three verses that I have been giving to you to contemplate). In Romans 5:19, through the obedience of one many are made righteous. This is not only a declaration of righteousness without an actual righteousness being present in the person's life.

For even with the concept that we are declared righteous apart from actually being righteous, you must deal with the concept that it is impossible for God to lie (a biblical concept, see Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2). And since this is the case, if God says someone is righteous, they are actually righteous. (He calls those things which be not as though they are (Romans 4:17) thus creating the reality of the thing that He has now declared).

It all comes down to what you think actual righteousness is. Is it practical and is it relevant? Does it work itself out in our behaviour? Or, is God telling a giant fib in saying that the person is righteous when in all reality he continues to be the worst of sinners in the practical sense?

In 1 John 3:7,

1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Please expound upon this verse word by word, and explain to me how you think this is speaking of mere imputed righteousness in light of the word in the middle, "doeth".

Because I believe that it defines a righteous person as someone who lives out righteousness in a practical way.

I think that in order to come up with the concept that this verse is speaking of mere imputed righteousness, you may indeed have to change or pervert the verse itself. Perhaps the original Greek renders it differently?

Little children, let no man deceive you.

In post #(343) your first pillar, (Rom. 5:19) fell. To which you just basically said in (346) you are not going to believe it. Just like what you have just said concerning the Mosaic Law, in your refusal to answer the question. You are not going to believe it is all Law. Thus fell pillar #(2) which was (Matt. 5:6). Now your legalistic doctrine is teetering on one verse. And my how you believe it is your champion. I love this imagery.

So with each of your verses you use, your pillars to uphold legalistic doctrines, the outcome of our discussion has been the same. You just say, I don't believe it. And there will be no difference with (1 John 3:7).

You have asked me a question, "how do you think this is speaking of mere imputed righteousness in light of the word in the middle, 'doeth'." I ask you, where have I indicated that (1 John 3:7) is speaking of mere imputed righteousness?

We come now to (1 John 3:7), which you claim I have ignored your questions concerning. But I have not. In post #(148) I gave a brief explanation of it. See the last three paragraphs. You ignored the greater part of what was said, and cherry picked out only two sentences. See post #(171). So who is it who has been refusing to answer?

Since you have gotten confused (concepts will do that) on what we are arguing, you need first answer the question I just asked you about where I indicated (1 John 3:7) is mere imputed righteousness. And then go back to post #(148) and tell me what is wrong with my explanation of (1 John 3:7). Don't worry, there is more to be said, but I don't think we are on the same page at this time.

Stanger

 

[brakelite]

. It is not the righteousness imputed to him

No, it is the righteousness imparted to him through having the mind of Christ. It is the righteousness that comes through the believer being changed from gory to glory. It is the righteousness revealed through the believer being changed daily into the image of his Savior. It is not his righteousness, it is the righteousness that comes by faith through the promise that the believer may partake of the divine nature...it is Christ's righteousness.

 

[justbyfaith]

#148:

You can do righteously. You can do righteous things. But only in view of having Christ's imputed righteousness declared unto you. No matter how good your righteous deeds are here on earth, they will not get you to heaven.

The declared righteousness is just that...declared. It is you being declared as righteous as Christ even though you are not. As I said, that will be true in Heaven also. You will always be there only due to the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. If that is so, and it is, it shows no matter how good your righteousness here is, it is not enough. Before God it is filthy rags.

Being made righteous, and declared righteous are the same things. You are made righteous by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

You are righteous as Christ only because of your faith in Christ. You do righteous things only because you have been declared righteous by God and have the Holy Spirit in you. I have told you before concerning (1 John 3:7) that John is drawing stark division between sin and righteousness throughout his letter. In one place he says we are all sinners. (1:8-10) In another, he says if you sin you are of the devil and believers don't sin. (3:8-10) It all depends on what error he is addressing.

Johns whole purpose in writing his letter is abiding in Christ and fellowship with God. (1John 1:3-4) (2:6) (3:6) Again, (John) is not giving a doctrinal thesis on the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ as Paul does. So, yes, you as a believer will do righteous things. That reflects on you having Christ's righteousness imputed to you. You are as righteous as Christ, only by imputation.

That 'impartation' of that righteousness, which you like to claim, does not mean you maintain that righteousness. Your good things you do, do not change that righteousness. They don't improve upon it. The bad things you do, your sins, does not take away from that righteousness. You want this to be so, because that way you put the believer under some sort of law. If you could improve or take away from the imputed righteousness of Christ, then you would no longer need it in Heaven, where you are sinless and in the presence of God forever.

Stranger

I think I must have missed this post of yours; because I am in agreement with it: unless in context of the other posts before it it is saying something different than what I now think of it as saying.

Although, at second look, I think that if people are not really righteous in heaven, but it is only God looking at them through rose-colored glasses there also, then that would mean that there is sin in heaven; and if that be the case, there is suffering in heaven: because I consider that the only cause of suffering is sin.

#171:

That scripture does not exactly say that we are all sinners; but that we all "have sin". Sin can be rendered dead so that we do not sin; thus we would not be sinners in the sense of being people who generally sin.



By impartation also. 1 John 3:7 speaks of a righteousness that we do, that is even as He is righteous.



I agree with you, that righteousness is imputed to us regardless of our sins. However, this does not mean that righteousness will not also be imparted for those who desire it.



He was also God in the flesh (John 1:1,14 (kjv)).



This is a heresy called adoptionism.



"cross". You have just identified yourself as a Jehovah's Witness. Sorry, but that is identified as a cult.



Jesus Christ is come in the flesh; and those who deny this are of the spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).



While we will receive glorified, spiritual bodies, it should be clear that we will still be, in a sense, in the flesh; for we will drink wine with Jesus new in the kingdom (the same kind of wine as was served at the Last Supper). And no, it is not that I say this because I want to drink wine; rather it is because this is a proof text for people being in physical bodies once we enter in.



Actually, those who remain on the earth after these have been robed in white will all be condemned, because it is written,

Rev 13:16, And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

and,

Rev 14:9, And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Rev 14:10, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Rev 14:11, And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.



Romans 7:14-25 is Paul using the literary tactic of IDENTIFICATION (see 1 Corinthians 9:22) to identify himself as carnal in order to define carnality to the reader. There are two types of believer; carnal and spiritual (1 Corinthians 3:1). Paul was not carnal himself or else you have a carnal person penning the holy scriptures. But 2 Peter 1:21 tells us that this is only accomplished faithfully by holy men of God.



The actual word in the verse is "if" not "when".

Since the above post is by me, I do not see how it is that you think that it is going to support your pov.

Sorry, there was a little confusion. You are saying that I cherry-picked out of your statement what I wanted to respond to. Yes, that it true; because I agreed with everything else (as far as I remember).

 

[justbyfaith]

I have not presented Matthew 5:6 and Romans 5:19 as pillars for my faith; but as strikes, of the sword of the Spirit, against your understanding that righteousness is imputed only.

In post #148 above, you conceded that righteousness is also imparted, so I win.

1 John 3:7, in doing its double damage, won the day!

 

[justbyfaith]

Also, it should be clear that the context of a verse does not nullify its plain application to our lives, hermeneutically. Every verse of scripture has application to our lives that is not defeated by the context.

And therefore, the context of Matthew 5:6, that it is contained in the Sermon on the Mount, which you say is nothing but law, does not make it any less of a real promise; for you have even admitted that there are real promises contained in law.

It remains that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled with righteousness; and that this is not merely imputed (as God looking at a man through rose-colored glasses); but it is imparted (as God filling the person with His love; in fact shedding His love abroad in the heart, Romans 5:5).

In Romans 5:19, it should be clear that the person is not only declared righteous (as would be the case with mere imputation); but they are made righteous (which indicates impartation).

And in 1 John 3:7, it is clear that the person who is righteous will do what is righteous. And this indicates, again, that it is not merely God looking at the person through rose-colored glasses; but that there is a practical righteousness that is being spoken of here. And you did not expound the verse word-by-word, like I asked. The person who does what is righteous is righteous, even as Jesus Christ is righteous. Little children, let no man deceive you into thinking otherwise.

I will expound this as saying that a righteous person is defined by the righteousness that he does. Now I do not say that he is righteous because he does what is righteous; but rather that he does what is righteous because he is righteous. This goes back to Romans 5:19, through the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. And also, the fact that when God declares us righteous in justification, it is impossible that He should lie; and therefore in declaring me righteous, He does not leave me practically in an unrighteous state; but He calls those things which be not as though they are, thus creating a new reality (Romans 4:17). Whereas previously I was ungodly (see Romans 4:5); He now declares me righteous; and in doing so He makes me righteous (Romans 5:19, Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2, Romans 4:17).

So then, back in 1 John 3:7, because I am righteous, even as Christ is righteous, my behaviour will reflect that righteousness, in what I do.