Emil's answer covers the interpretation of the question in which the Lindenbaum algebra is considered abstractly, i.e., up to isomorphism. Another possible interpretation would take "Lindenbaum algebra" to mean the specific algebra consisting of equivalence classes of formulas, where equivalence of $\phi$ and $\psi$ means that $T$ proves $(\phi\iff\psi)$. (The Boolean operations are given by the propositional connectives, so the equivalence class $[\phi]$ of $\phi$ will be $\leq[\psi]$ iff $T$ proves $(\phi\implies\psi)$.) With this interpretation, one can obtain a model from the Lindenbaum algebra, provided the vocabulary of $T$ is countable. This is called the Rasiowa-Sikorski construction (it's in their book "The Mathematics of Metamathematics"), and it goes as follows. Work, as usual, with a countably infinite set of variables, so if the vocabulary of $T$ is countable, the Lindenbaum algebra $A$ is also countable. For each formula of the form
$\forall x\,\phi(x)$, its equivalence class is the greatest lower bound (the Boolean meet) of all the instances $[\phi(y)]$, where $y$ ranges over all the variables (and substituting $y$ for $x$ in $\phi(x)$ is understood to include renaming any bound variables in $\phi(x)$ to avoid clashes). There are ultrafilters $U$ in $A$ that respect these particular meets; that is, $[\forall x\,\phi(x)]\in U$ iff, for each $y$, $[\phi(y)]\in U$. (Quite generally, any countably many prescribed meets are respected by some ultrafilter. This theorem of Rasiowa and Sikorski is essentially the Baire category theorem applied to the Stone space of $A$.) Fix such an ultrafilter $U$ and form a structure as follows: Its universe is obtained by taking the set of all terms in the vocabulary of $T$ and dividing by the equivalence relation that identifies $t$ with $t'$ iff $[t=t']\in U$. Function symbols are interpreted in the obvious way, and a relation symbol $R$ is interpreted as holding of those tuples of equivalence classes of terms
$t_1,\dots,t_n$ for which
$[R(t_1,\dots,t_n)]\in U$. One checks that these definitions make sense (i.e., don't depend on the choices of terms from equivalence classes), so that one obtains a structure $M$, and that the formulas that hold in $M$ are exactly those whose equivalence classes (in $A$) are in $U$. In particular, for any theorem $\theta$ of $T$, the equivalence class is $[\theta]=1\in U$, so $M$ is a model of $T$.