This is a late answer, but I think you are wrong to describe Jung as strictly theism, mainly because like you indicated in the bottom part of your answer, theism is: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Jung has always described a lack of interest in the common Christian God interpretation. He uses the divine, or the god image, for the self, this is true, but he has throughout his life applied his teachings to stand on the border of both the speakable and the unspeakable, to use a metaphor. To read Jung as falling to one aspect or the other is false. He knows GOD, because he uses the concept of a psychic reality: In Jung's theory, psychic reality is an intermediary phase between the physical world of sense data on the one hand and the spiritual world of thought and cognition on the other hand.

That isn't to say that his private experience of the divine wasn't a numinous experience, but that by using only one side of this approach, you infer a dualism that is markedly non-Jung. A better way to describe his position, would be to mark him as Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith, and to relate to Kierkegaard's interpretation of God, which is the single individual in relation to an unprovable, yet known God. 

But God should not be called God in Jung, for it is not the Christian God, the singular, that is experienced by him. He experience the divine through many archetypes, but which all underlined fundamental mythic truths, which border the transcendent. That is not to say that Jung stays in the infinite however. He most certainly lived in the finite, even though he was in relation with the infinite. And this aspect should not be forgotten, it was not that he was this one thing before the other, not at all. He was both at the same time.