That’s an unusual position to take when discussing a historical creed‘a relationship to a historical marker of orthodox theology. It’s like saying the Reformation is not so important to the formulation of the Westminster confession. Systematic theology is as much about church history as it is about scripture.
I agree, but neither does it prove apostolic or very early Church origin either. The evidence of first usage, and the fact that discussion of the creed is conspicuous by its absence in the Patristic writings pre-390AD, seems to suggest that it the creed did not appear centuries before the doctrine of the Trinity.
Only if the creed predates the doctrine, which as I have demonstrated, lacks evidence as is therefore unlikely. Furthermore, if it did not reach its final form until Pirminius then the current version we use today is implicitly Trinitarian by virtue of its final editor and therefore should be read in a Trinitarian light. Much like the bible, theology and theological documents need to be understood in their historical cultural context.
I thought I was by fact checking your claim.
Since is no evidence to suggest that the Apostles Creed predates the doctrine of the Trinity by centuries. I would suggest that an approach to the Creed which is respectful of its historical context and late development should understand it as part of a wider package of Trinitarian theology. So I’d respectfully say, no, one cannot hold to the creed without holding to a doctrine of the Trinity.