According to biblical inerrantists, are the apostles' recorded speeches in the book of Acts inerrant? Evangelicals/fundamentalists who believe in biblical inerrancy hold that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and contains no errors.1  This is typically understood to refer to the original autographs of texts that were written by or under one of the recognized apostles (twelve plus Paul).  

There are a number of places in the Gospels where the words of the apostles are obviously wrong, such as when Jesus rebukes Peter in Matthew 16:22–23.  This isn't a problem to the inerrantist, because the record is inerrant, not the content of Peter's speech.

Does anything change when we turn to the Book of Acts?  That is, do those who believe the Evangelical/Fundamentalist view of biblical inerrancy also believe that the speeches made by the apostles are inerrant?

For example, an inerrantist would say that the Book of Acts is inerrant.  Thus, Acts 20 is an inerrant record of a historical event (which happens to include a speech by Paul). But, does the inerrantist extend this and hold that Jesus definitely, without a doubt, said the things that Paul attributes to him in that speech?


  Acts 20:35 (ESV)
  “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” 


Or is it theoretically possible, according to the biblical inerrantist, that Paul was mistaken, or even lying, about what Jesus said?

I'm not specifically asking about this passage, but more generally about all the recorded speeches of apostles in the book of Acts.

A great answer would cite inerrantist scholars who deal with this question.  If there is disagreement among evangelicals, I'd like an overview of the positions.



1. For the purposes of this question, I'm referring to those who would sign the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
One way to demonstrate that, according to inerrantists, the apostles' recorded speeches are not necessarily inerrant, would be to find a speech that inerrantist theologians admit contains an error.  At least one such example exists.  In Acts 20:25, Paul speaks to the elders of Ephesus, and says:


  And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. [ESV]


It's a matter of some debate as to whether or not Paul actually did return to Ephesus.  If he did, that would perhaps indicate that Paul was mistaken.  So how do inerrantist scholars deal with this verse?

The Moody Bible Commentary establishes itself as an inerrantist work in its treatment of 2 Timothy 3:16 ("inerrancy in both historical fact and in doctrine").  Regarding Acts 20:25, it reads:


  Because Paul did not know exactly what would happen in the future, he told the elders they would never see him again.  Paul did see the Ephesians again after he spent two years in Rome under house arrest; but at this point he did not know he would return to the area, so his concern was to prepare the elders for ministry in his absence.


Similarly, the Reformation Study Bible, whose general editor, R. C. Sproul, signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:


  Paul's statement was based on his own judgment of the situation rather than on divine revelation.  [...] Paul considered it likely that he was seeing the Ephesian elders for the last time.  However, it appears that Paul was later able to return to Ephesus after his release from prison in Rome.


Millard Erickson addresses the issue more broadly:


  Stephen, in his speech in Acts 7, may not have been inspired, although he was filled with the Holy Spirit.  Thus, his chronological statement in verse 6 is not necessarily free from error.  It appears that even Paul and Peter may on occasion have made incorrect statements.


So when is a biblical statement considered inerrant?  Erickson continues:


  When, however, something is taken by a biblical writer, from whatever source, and incorporated in his message as an affirmation, not merely a report, then it must be judged as truthful.


Summary
Evangelicals holding to inerrancy have no issue with errors being reported by the biblical writers, even when such errors are spoken by apostles.  Thus the speeches of the apostles recorded in the inerrant book of Acts are not necessarily inerrant.  The biblical writer must directly affirm or teach a falsehood in order to contradict inerrancy.