This is not the question 'What does the Parable of the Talents mean according to Protestantism,' but a question specifically regarding the nature of the 'wicked' servant, and how it corresponds to his justification.
Here is the Parable:
Matthew 25:14-30 (DRB)
14 For even as a man going into a far country, called his servants, and delivered to them his goods; 15 And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey. 16 And he that had received the five talents, went his way, and traded with the same, and gained other five. 17 And in like manner he that had received the two, gained other two. 18 But he that had received the one, going his way digged into the earth, and hid his lord's money. 19 But after a long time the lord of those servants came, and reckoned with them. 20 And he that had received the five talents coming, brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents, behold I have gained other five over and above. 21 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me: behold I have gained other two. 23 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. 25 And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou hast that which is thine. 26 And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. 29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. 30 And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I'm going to assume at least a few things are not disputed:
A talent was an enormous sum of money at that time (cf. NIV, "bag of gold"). According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, a talent was equivalent of 3000 shekels, or $6000.
Entering into the joy of the Lord refers to Heaven.
Entering the exterior darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth is Hell.
Given this background, how do Protestants explain the fact that the Lord entrusted an abundance of his goods, which I'm going to assert is grace (and I don't think Protestants dispute this, but correct me if I'm wrong; cf. Eph 4:7-8; Mt 25:14-15), to his "servant" (not someone 'unsaved'),1 and depending on how he makes good with what is entrusted to him, he is judged to either heaven or hell.
That is, how isn't the justification of Jesus' servants spoken of in this Parable? And if it is about justification (again, which I believe heaven and hell as the respective outcomes necessitate), how, on the basis of negligence can you "receive the grace of God in vain," and go to hell, if justification is not contingent at all upon our works done by Jesus' grace?
Thanks in advance.
1 There are only two categories in this parable: both kinds of servants: those who go to hell for ill conduct, and those go to heaven. The servant who is "assigned" a place in hell was beforehand just a servant, and his conduct seems to determine which kind of servant he is. The word "assigned" necessitates this.