[HarleyD]

Sorry, Harley, you'll have to come up with something more convincing to explain this away.

Since you have eSword I would suggest you read John Gill's commentary. This is what John MacArthur has to state about this section. Perhaps this will be a little clearer.

The slave was wicked in that he unjustly besmirched the character of his master, and he was lazy in that he did nothing with the talent entrusted to him. By repeating the slave’s charge against him, the master did not acknowledge its truthfulness. He rather said, in effect: “You think I am a hard man, do you, harvesting crops that do not belong to me? If you really though that, why did you not take the talent and put it in the bank, where it could at least draw interest?”

…

Even if the slave’s accusation against his owner had been valid, it would not have excused his indolence. If anything, it would have made it more foolhardy. “If you thought I demand a return even on that which does not belong to me,” the master countered, in effect, “did you think I would not require a return on that which does belong to me?” The slave was verbally hanged with his own rope.

The truth of the matter was that the slave had no real concern for his master one way or the other, and his excuse seems to have been more spur of the moment than planned. He did not expect the master’s return and did not expect to be held accountable, and when he was caught by surprise he simply threw out an outrageous charge that made no sense.

The distinguishing mark of the first two servants was that they used their opportunity to serve the Lord before His return, which they eagerly awaited, and thereby proved the genuineness of their salvation. They were willing to invest everything they had in the service of their Master. The third servant, on the other hand, put aside what God had given him and went about his own selfish business. He called himself a servant of God but demonstrated conclusively he was not.

The master was angry with the third slave not simply because he lost a profit but because the slave wasted his opportunity. Jesus’ point was that having little to work with is no excuse for not using it at all.

John MacArthur, Commentary on Matthew

[jo kus]

I agree with Mr. MacArthur's commentary, more or less. The point is that the third slave did not utilize the gift given - and he certainly was not invincibly ignorant, now, was he? Thus, the man was condemned for refusing the gift, which was my point. He DID have FREE WILL...The third slave had no excuse, and it appears that the Master based the judgment of the slave on the knowledge the slave had to go with. Sounds pretty Catholic, I guess.

Regards