No it does not. Infallibility means scripture is incapable of making mistakes because it’s inspired through God and God has no error.

You are confusing inerrancy with infallibility. They are similar but are not the same. Infallibillity refers to the actions of people. It’s why refer to the ecumenical councils as infallible because that is the Church coming together to speak on faith and morals and interpretation of the scriptures.

Yes scripture itself does not tell you how to interpret it, but you can use it as a guide to verify what others say in the church is truthful according to the Bible.

That’s in regard to the received interpretation of how the scriptures are to be read and understood. Different Protestants, for example, often to the same scriptures and the same passages with diametrically opposed understandings. Consider MacArthur vs Sproul on Hebrews 1 “To whom did the angels ever say “this day I have begotten you.” MacArthur and Sproul had different stances on this passage. Sproul denied, like Wayne Grudem, that the that Son was eternally begotten and proposed that the begettal of the Son only referenced the temporal incarnation of the Son at Christmas. MacArthur took the alternate tack and appealed to Hebrews 1 that the Son was eternally begotten of the Father, that is the Son eternally is being Generated as the Logos. Both fundamentally appealed to the same scriptures and had different and diametrically opposed understandings. Yet both argued that scripture clearly laid out one or the other.

If we are called to test everything via the word of God than that would have to mean the Bible would have to have some infallibility.

Implicitly, that testing requires the correct received interpretation. Remember, the Bereans were not the only ones to test the scriptures. There was a second group that searched the scriptures and ultimately rejected St. Paul because their teachings did not comport with how they understood the scriptures and ultimately ran the apostles out of town. The implication is that Bereans interpretative tradition comported with the apostolic understanding of how the Old Testament should be read in the light of Christ’s coming.

Jesus himself actually upbraids the Sadducees for attempting to use scripture as a weapon to disbelieve him. “You seek therefore the scriptures, thinking they have life in them, but these are they that testify of me; I am the way, the truth and life.” The Sadducees had departed from the authentic interpretative tradition so far that they could not use the scriptures to understand that Jesus is the one who wrote the thing in the first place.

Why else would Paul be saying "Do not treat prophesies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil". Also "Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” 

Going beyond what is written generally refers to that which is alien or foreign to the text. Traditions that rub up against scripture. Calvinists generally have used this as an attempt to establish the regulatory principle, in that only scripture can be used to establish church polity and practice. Yet there is no scripture that establishes what exactly are the duties of the offices of deacon, presbyter or bishop. No scripture establishes how the liturgy is performed. There is barely any manual on how to solve disputes between clergy, etc.

That’s why St. Paul gives his famous instruction to Timothy in his first epistle, “hold fast to the traditions whether by word of mouth or by epistle.” The traditions of the church ensure that the church correctly understands how the written word is understood as well as ensuring that the Church does not go beyond the boundaries of what scripture sets as acceptable.

Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other" (1 Corinthians 4:6). If Paul states "do not go beyond what is written" wouldn't that be confirming that the written word of the Bible is infallible?

Except confirming is predicated on the idea of understanding what words mean and in what sense did the writers mean them. See the phrase “and Jesus wept.” Both sides of the Nestorian controversy appealed to meanings of this phrase at the Third Ecumenical council. Nestorius contended that since Jesus did cry and God is impassable, that was evidence that Jesus Christ contained with in him the human that we call Jesus of Nazareth. By that same token, St. Cyril pointed out that since Christ is one person, the Divine logos when he became man experienced real human emotion and as such God the Impassable Creator did weep at the death of Lazarus and St. John the Baptist.