Middle Knowledge and Open Theism fall into the same camp—non-Reformed and unbiblical. All shades of either are contrary to Reformed theology. See Richard Muller, “Grace, Election, and Contingent Choice: Arminius's Gambit and the Reformed Response," in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will, ed. Schreiner, Ware II:251-278. If you can’t find it try Schreiner and Ware’s Still Sovereign (same book different name).

Quote
It has become generally accepted that Arminius was familiar with Molina's and Suarez's work and made use of the idea of middle knowledge. see Eef Dekker, "Was Arminius a Molinist?" Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (1996) 337-52; Richard A. Muller, "Arminius and the Scholastic Tradition," CTJ 24 (1989) 263-77; Barry E. Bryant, "Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley on Human Free-Will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge," Wesley Theological Journal 27 (1992) 93-103.
PS: As to a “cafeteria approach to dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology,” you will find the serving line closed once you understand CT more completely.