[Raynor]

He is punished for his evil acts and intentions, but does he ultimately deserve redemption for his good acts and intentions?

Apparently, Tolkien too can't clame ultimate insight:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Bilbo and Eowyn both commit “wrongful acts” (theft and disobedience to authority), yet they do so with good intentions and, ultimately, for the greater good.

I don't think that anyone can judge with "horse spectacles". What is good and evil certainly has a bit of flexibility and it depends, as I quoted above, on the level we consider things. Anyway, we certainly have to make a decision between two evils at a certain time, and chose the lesser one, sort of speaking; and refusing to chose in such a situation would probably be the greater evil of all. Bilbo had to choose between letting things move their way or trying to improve the situation as he best saw fit, in the name of what he genuinely believe was a general good - and he did so with an amount of positive, self sacrifice, which I believe is an ultimate redemption on his part. In the case of Eowyn I don't know how much we can enquire; her desire to die is somewhat more evident in LotR than her love for her father (as said in HoME).

If wrongful acts may be committed, provided that they are committed with the intention of furthering the cause of good, does this not open up the scope for a philosophy whereby the end may be seen as justifying the means?

Now, while end justifying the means is one of the main pillars of consequentialism, I don't think that this is what I initially argued for. On earth, each and every possible law can be interpreted in more than one way - depending on the interpreter. But I believe that the only valid judgement on sin resides with God (or well, Eru in our debate), and he will take into consideration the true intention of the doer, regardless of what the doer might argue he was working for.