Nope, it is a specific definition that makes the two exclusive of each other. It is not the imposition of the Trinity but the overwhelming statement from the Bible that there is and ever shall be only one be one True God in any existence.
One sees that within the definition of Theosis that man does not become a 'true' God any more that a woman's dog becomes a woman when it inherits the woman's estate (as has happened in some cases). This is in contrast to the mormon apotheosis where the mormon plans to become a 'true' god as mormon teaching is that they are the same species as heavenly father, jesus, etc.
It's been established that theosis in and of itself is not unChristian. So, it comes down to the Trinity and the Trinity alone.
Well weedhopper, need to sharpen your pencil again. The wall you can't seem to get around is the solidly biblical fact that there is only one true God in all existence - period.
Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting.
This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothéōsis) - "Deification in God’s Essence", which is imparticipable.
Now they don't explain here why it is imparticipable (Greek philosophy - Platonic thought ala Proclus, et. al.- look it up), because Ireneaus doesn't speak in regards to the Trinity, but calls Jesus and the Holy Spirit God's hands.
Hunt around the site for all the doctrines presented there by the Eastern Orthodox. They are really worth exploring and you can see that as the church ages past the 2nd into the 3rd century the doctrine regarding the Godhead begins to change and the Trinitarian formulation begins.
More than Catholics, the EO have kept closer union to the teachings of the early Christian Church.
Here you can read about the EO opinions on the teachings of Ireneaus.
The statement by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, "The Son of God became man, that we might become god", [the second g is always lowercase since man can never become a God] indicates the concept beautifully.
II Peter 1:4 says that we have become " . . . partakers of divine nature." Athanasius amplifies the meaning of this verse when he says theosis is "becoming by grace what God is by nature" (De Incarnatione, I).
What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate.
Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.
Through theoria, the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, human beings come to know and experience what it means to be fully human (the created image of God); through their communion with Jesus Christ God shares Himself with the human race, in order to conform them to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness and holiness.
Theosis also asserts the complete restoration of all people (and of the entire creation), in principle.
This is built upon the understanding of the atonement put forward by Irenaeus of Lyons, called "recapitulation."
For many fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in his person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time.
Some Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.
Spend some time digesting this, then we'll revisit Theosis.
Agreed it is a specific definition meant to distinguish full from partial theosis.
The first takeaway is that the concept alone of theosis in not unBiblical, nor is it unChristian. It is normal and expected across even modern Christian groups as previously stated by one of you (it's like stepping on a wasp nest, can't tell who stung last - LOL).
It is not the imposition of the Trinity but the overwhelming statement from the Bible that there is and ever shall be only one be one True God in any existence.
Here's the first fault. It is only by the imposition of the Trinity that theosis need be limited. You have to recognize that the world of the learned and scholarly had been utterly Hellenized. The early Church faced attacks, very strong attacks not only from Judaism, but from Greek Philosophy. Greek Philosophy dominated in a way socialist thinking dominated pre-Internet during the 20th century.
The Trinity is the reaction to these two-fold attacks. The Jews were right - their God was one God. How do you reconcile Jesus (his Messiahship is very different from past and current Jewish expectation) and Jesus' own statements about himself and God to that?
Take a look here to get a flavor of how the issue had to be viewed: Transfiguration of Christ
Think about who is there and why Jesus had to be transfigured?
One sees that within the definition of Theosis that man does not become a 'true' God any more that a woman's dog becomes a woman when it inherits the woman's estate (as has happened in some cases).
Now, no dog is made in man's image and likeness. Yet, when God created human beings, he made them to be like himself.
We are also expected to be full heirs not partial heirs.Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
NB: we are listed as both heirs of God & co-heirs with Christ. Why list both if they are one and the same?
This is in contrast to the Mormon Apotheosis where the Mormon plans to become a 'true' god as Mormon teaching is that they are the same species as Heavenly Father, Jesus, etc.
There's the rub - it is the Bible that tells us we are the same species as Heavenly Father & Jesus.
Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us."
Now, this doctrine was offensive to the Jewish mind. They'd been steeped in Pharisaical doctrines to such a degree that they missed the Messiah as he passed right through their very lives. This doctrine was also offensive to the learned Greeks, logicians and philosophers all. It cost many Christian lives to believe these things. Hunters of apostate-Jews like Saul testify of this in the New Testament.
The point is that LDS doctrine is right when it counts - it matches the clear teachings of the Bible. It doesn't appeal to the modern scholar groomed in Trinitarian doctrine. The parallels are striking.
Now, that's enough for tonight. I don't have Outlook Express and I have to type this all out by hand. I am a slow typist, you outnumber me by 10 to 1, and you weary me with post after post.