What problems, if any, do Oneness Pentecostals have with the Apostles' Creed? As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: Do Oneness Pentecostals disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.  But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed?  Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it?  Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'm most interested in how notable Oneness Pentecostal theologians view the creed (in overview style, if there is disagreement).

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Swedenborgians.
Like many other non-trinitarian groups, Oneness Pentecostals tend to be hesitant to align themselves too closely with any ancient creed, even one like the Apostles' Creed that is less clearly trinitarian than others (like the Nicene or Athanasian creeds).  Still, some, like Steve Joel Moffett, apparently find trinitarianism within the creed:


  [The] common creed known as the apostles Creed is the unifying factor of all the Christian religions of the United States except the Oneness Pentecostal churches.  The Apostles Creed has as a part of the creed that those churches believe in God in three persons. (Oneness Pentecostal Theology, v2)


Others, however, on closer analysis, are not convinced that there is anything specifically objectionable in the creed.  David Bernard, a leading Oneness theologian, argues that the creed does not teach trinitarianism. Reviewing the various versions of the Apostles' Creed, he writes:


  For the most part they follow biblical language very closely.  They describe the Son of God only in terms of the Incarnation, nowhere hinting that the Son is a separate person in the Godhead or that the Son is eternal.  They affirm belief in the Holy Ghost, but not as a separate person of the Godhead.  Instead they place this affirmation together with other statements relating to salvation, leading us to believe that they are talking about the gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost and to the working of the Holy Ghost in the church.  Thus, there is nothing really objectionable in the language if we define the terms in the same way the Bible uses them. (The Oneness of God, 281)


Even so, Bernard does not advocate the use of the creed, in part because of its strong association with trinitarianism.