Needed the creeds? What was wrong with scripture?
The sad result of having creeds was that people were persecuted for not accepting them. They became a test of faith, whereas scripture alone ought to be the sole test of faith. In other words, the declarations of church councils and the opinions of men became the justification for excommunicating, jailing, fining, whipping, and killing those who in many cases were more in touch with the holy Spirit than any who were part of the institutionalized orthodoxy demanding everyone's subservience.
As for the apostle's Creed, and being 'imprisoned' by its declarations of faith, it's not to say that those individual declarations are necessarily wrong, but that one must accept each one as the sum total of understanding on each topic, as of overnight the church understood all the truth there was to be known re the nature of God and man, and God's purposes through the gospel. Your church itself confesses that truth is progressive, and therefore traditions that transpire over time that contribute to the whole understanding of truth can became acceptable dogma.
As for the Creed itself, I have 2 issues. The first, did Jesus really descend into hell? One must first agree on the nature and meaning of hell before committing himself to that particular point. The second is the Catholic church's usurpation of the later declaration, "I believe in the holy catholic church". Rome would have everyone believe the word catholic must have a capital C and is a noun. I believe it ought to be a small c and is an adjective.
Later creeds such as that produced at Nicea are even worse, and the Athanasian Creed an abomination.