This message was clearly doomed to be moved anyway, so.....
The argument is laid out at the end of
I've looked at the page in question, and it is, at best, a disorganized mess. The only scripture quotation in it that I see which I can make much sense of is the Genesis one (the first reference-- the second reference to Genesis has the wrong verse number). I'll get back to that one. The others I can't make heads or tails of. The passage from 1 Peter doesn't use the word "theosis" or anything like it; it isn't explained what about the Phillipians passage would be read differently in East and West.
That takes us back to the word "eikona" in Genesis 1:26. I don't think it can be said that the Hebrew word behind this is read in a single way anywhere. There is a certain quality of mystery (in the theological sense) about this passage, because in Exodus the Israelites are told not to make images of God.
Which brings us back to St. Maximos. What I see in practice is that Orthodoxy is exactly like Catholicism in its tendency to slide into a precisely juridical view of what must be done to be saved. Bad Orthodoxy/Catholicism falls into saying that salvation is to be worked out through submission to the earthly church and obedience to its dictates. Once you step away from this sort of self-parody Christianity, the differences between East and West get a lot more blurry. It is true that the issue of superrogation has tended to swampt things at times (which is why there's so much effort in the Catholic Encyclopedia devoted to refuting Martin Luther). I don't have time now, conversely, to talk about the tendency in the East to talk about the Action of God as if i were a substance. (That discussion should be in the substantial grace discussion anyway.)
The main problem here is that the passage is itself nearly gobbledygook. It's not a very coherent exposition of anything.